Results 161 - 180 of 332
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Do holy people have to speak in tongues? | 1 Cor 12:30 | retxar | 29428 | ||
1Co 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant Why would anyone turn their nose up at ANY gift from God? |
||||||
162 | Do holy people have to speak in tongues? | 1 Cor 12:30 | retxar | 29425 | ||
Greetings algumwood! Welcome to studybible forumsville! I think I could agree with all you are saying here, except for your take on Acts 19:2. I also believe these 12 disciples here were true believers. They would not have been called “disciples” unless they were in fact true believers. However, there is no way they could be true believers unless they had also received the Holy Spirit (Joh 7:39, Rom 8:9, Rom 8:16, 2Co 1:22, Eph 1:13, 1Jo 5:10). These disciples probably came to believe under the teaching of Apollos, which would have definitely been after the cross. So according to John 7:39, they HAD to have received the Holy Spirit also. Their answer in Act 19:2 was one of ignorance, and not necessarily one of truth. This lines up with Acts 18:24-28 that gives some background on some of Apollos’s earlier teaching, in which these disciples were probably under. Apollos was not aware that Jesus’s death and resurrection was something that had already happened, rather than just a promise, until he was told different by Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:26). This would explain these disciples answer here when they said they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit. They had not heard of the Holy Spirit because Apollos’s was not aware that the Holy Spirit had been given. What they received here was not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as Jesus’s disciples received in John 20:22, and they no doubt received when they believed. What they received was the filling of the Holy Spirit as Jesus’s disciples received in Acts 2:4 and the Samaritans received in Acts 8:14-17. retxar |
||||||
163 | How many local churches have you tried? | Heb 11:8 | retxar | 29374 | ||
Greetings Joe, My transition from my former fellowship to my new one was a gradual one, not immediate, as I attended both for a while. The former church offered me comfort, as I was with believers I knew and who knew me. At the former church I had a choice of serving or being served. At the former church I had a choice of commitment or non-commitment. At the former church I was with people who were satisfied. At the new church I was with people who were hungry. At the new church He was sending the hungry and hurting to me, in which I was allowed to minister to thru the Gospel and prayer. He was also growing me up in the Word that allowed me to do that. The choice to leave my former church was clear. God was using me in the new church in an undeniable way that was bringing Him glory, which was not from my efforts, but God’s grace. God’s clear call for me to leave the former church was the question of where God was using me the most, which was clearly at the new church. Jesus Saves! retxar |
||||||
164 | How many local churches have you tried? | Heb 11:8 | retxar | 29353 | ||
Brian, We started the church, along with others, because we had a common vision to provide a Christian fellowship for those who may not be comfortable in a traditional church atmosphere, and to take the Gospel to the lost instead of trying to get the lost to come to us. We are a Calvary Chapel outreach (www.calvarychapel.com), so we operate under their guidelines and statement of faith. You are correct in that we are not a denominational church as such, but a fellowship of bible believing Christians who have a common desire to know Christ and be conformed to His image by the power of the Holy Spirit. We believe in all the basic doctrines of the historic Christian faith. We do not have a membership and offer nothing for anyone to join. Jesus only has one church, and you can’t join it, you must be born into it! retxar |
||||||
165 | How many local churches have you tried? | Heb 11:8 | retxar | 29241 | ||
Brian, I did not start the new church, but my family and the pastor’s family were the founding families. I am assistant pastor and teach the Word on occasion. We believe that scripture no where suggest that any of the so called “sign gifts” have ceased (1Co 13:10). However, they must be exercised according to scriptural guidelines. Tongues must be privately between the person speaking and God (1Co 14:28). If anyone is sick, we call the elders of the church (mature believers), and pray over them, anointing them with oil and we believe the prayer of faith will save them, and the Lord will raise them up (Jam 5:14-15). We expect that God will heal them, but we leave it in God's hands, as this is according to God’s sovereign will, not our obedience to the Word. retxar |
||||||
166 | How many local churches have you tried? | Heb 11:8 | retxar | 29217 | ||
Well, my old church was more traditional based. My new church is more of a street ministry outreach. I don't think it is so much the differences in the church, as it is the difference in me. There were plenty of areas at my old church where I was asked, lead, and did, step up to serve, but many times it seemed to be human effort based instead of Spirit lead. Our church services are much different, with a time of praise and worship and a time of serious “in the Word” Bible teaching/preaching, in which I lead at times. I would say my new church is more Spirit lead, and less tradition, program, and committee lead. My new church accepts the gifts of the Spirit and there operation and function according to scriptural guidelines. My old church tried to suppress and deny any so-called “sign gifts”. My new church encourages God centered praise and worship. My old church was happy with that “old time religion.” Nothing wrong with that, except for the “that’s good enough for me” attitude that often goes along with it! retxar |
||||||
167 | Judas went to hell? | NT general Archive 1 | retxar | 28608 | ||
Is not all this a repost of what kalos has already posted, or am I just confused? Are you also kalos, or are you just reposting as support for what he has already said? retxar |
||||||
168 | why did noah curse cannan | Gen 9:22 | retxar | 28515 | ||
Good word, Nolan! The teaching that Noah's curse was againts the blacks is totally unscriptural! Thank you for setting the record straight! Keep up the good work bro! retxar |
||||||
169 | Is private speaking in tongues Biblical? | Acts 2:6 | retxar | 28512 | ||
What is the conclusion then? Well, according to Paul's Holy Spirit inspired commentary; (not mine, yours, or others) "I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding." I think I will just go with that! Bless you in the coming year! Jesus, the author and finisher! retxar |
||||||
170 | Will we go thru the tribulation | Rev 3:10 | retxar | 28395 | ||
Serenetime, Please carefully consider all, in light of reason, and the scriptural evidence presented. Rev 1:10a I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day: "in the Sprit" means John was in a state where God could supernaturally reveal things to him in order for him to write the book of Revelation; "on the Lord's day" simple means it was Sunday, the 1st day of the week, the day Jesus arose (Mar 16:9). Could the two witnesses be Philadelphia and Smyrna? No, not the waty I see it, but if you see it that way, there is no way you can cling to the belief that the church will go thru the wrath of the great tribulation! If you see the two witnesses as churches, surely you can see that scripture is very clear in the fact that the witnesses are resurrected prior to the wrath of the GT (Rev 11:12). In light of that fact (you believing the witnesses are churches), would you consider changing you view to one that the church will NOT go thru the wrath of the great tribulation, considering there is no other conclusion, based on what you have told me you believe? Going on the 1st load! retxar |
||||||
171 | Will we go thru the tribulation | Rev 3:10 | retxar | 28354 | ||
Hello again, Serenetime In order for you to see a greater truth, let’s say the candlesticks in Rev 11:4 are churches. I think you originally presented this as proof that the church would not be spared the wrath of the great tribulation. Well if you read down to verse 12 you will see that the candlesticks (whether witnesses or churches) are called up to heaven. If you continue reading verse 13 and beyond, you will see that the wrath of the tribulation is just beginning and the “candlesticks” are spared from going thru it! Neat, huh? The Word is Light! retxar |
||||||
172 | Will we go thru the tribulation | Rev 3:10 | retxar | 28352 | ||
Hi Serenetime, The lampstands (candlesticks KJV) are the 2 witnesses (2 individuals Rev_11:8). The olive trees suppling the never ending supply of olive oil to the lampstand (the light of the world) is symbolic of the Holy Spirit from whence their power to be witnesses will come (Act_1:8). Even if one were to believe the two witnesses were churches instead of individuals (can’t see it myself), Rev_11:4 would be before the rapture of the church as those with a pre-wrath/mid-trib view of scripture see it. In other words, the rapture of the church would occur at the same time or about the same time as the resurrection of the 2 witnesses (Rev_11:3 1260 days is 3.5 years minus 17 days). retxar |
||||||
173 | Will we go thru the tribulation | Rev 3:10 | retxar | 28315 | ||
The word "these" in Rev 11:4 is referring to the previous verse, which speaks of the two prophets God will raise up, not churches. This was 1st prophesied in Zec 4. This corresponds with the two men God raised up in Zechariah’s day: Joshua and Zerubbabel. retxar |
||||||
174 | Is "heavenly prayer language" Biblical | Acts 2:6 | retxar | 28311 | ||
Sorry Searcher. I thought I just asked you to look at something. I did not realize I was "preaching" anything, let alone another gospel? Are you sure you think I should be accursed? (Gal 1:8). Anyway, the song of praise the 144,000 are singing before the throne (Rev 14:3) is a song of redemption that would only be understood by those who have been redeemed. That is probably the reason the others could not learn; not because of the words, but the meaning. Thanks for prodding me to dig a little deeper. I will leave you alone now, and will TRY to refrain from butting in on your future correspondence with others. Thanks, retxar |
||||||
175 | Is "heavenly prayer language" Biblical | Acts 2:6 | retxar | 28257 | ||
Hi Searcher, Please consider: In Rev 14:1-3 the 144,000 are in heaven and are singing a song of praise before the throne, in what seems to be a language no one else knows. Rev 14:3 ...no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand... This is not an argument that tongues are the language angels speak, but it does seem to mean that God can, and does, give languages that are not necessarily known to others. Keep on a dig' an a searching, Searcher! Blessing for the coming year! retxar |
||||||
176 | When will I speak/pray in tongues? | Acts 2:6 | retxar | 28039 | ||
Hi Lanny, YOU SAID: "No where in the Bible does it state that an unknown tongue is a language that no one understands," YOU ALSO SAID: “We must believe what is written in the Bible, not what may or may not have been omitted.” THE WORD SAYS: For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. (1Co 14:2) Lets see how your instructions for proper bible interpretation works with the above scripture reference. According to your guidelines, “tongue” would mean “tongue”, “no one understands” would mean “no one understands,” and “mysteries” would mean “mysteries”. HEY! IT WORKS! (and is easy to boot!) I SAY: Enough said! retxar |
||||||
177 | Define "praying in the Holy Spirit" | Acts 2:6 | retxar | 27993 | ||
Nolan, No criticism intended, but I think Paul's commentary of 1Co 14:14-15 is clearer and better than either Ryrie or MacArthur. "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding." (1Co 14:15a). The Ryrie commentary seems like it could be a reasonable interpretation, even tho it goes beyond what Paul actually said. The MacArthur commentary is just plain wrong, and is surely based on preconceived notions, not what I read anyway. If Paul was talking about a fake gift, why did he not say so? If Paul was talking about a fake gift, why did he say he participated in it? If Paul was talking about a fake gift, why would he give guidelines for it’s proper use? (I know, Tim has already pointed that out, I’m just raising the same question) I know you did not endorse either Ryrie or MacArthur, you just posted them as possible useful information, so I’m not saying you have to justify either. I’m just posting my disagreement of both (Ryrie slight/ Mac major) based on what Paul said plainly (to me anyway). My commentary of 1Co 14:14-15 would just be a repeat of what Paul said and with no adding or subtracting to what he said his conclusion was. The only possible way I see it could be taken differently is if one wished to argue that “pray with the spirit” in verse 15 was not a direct reference to “in a tongue, my spirit prays” in verse 14. (also “bless with the spirit” in verse 16). This would seem a stretch to me. Please understand, I don't think every reference in scripture that says "praying in the spirit" is speaking of praying in tongues only, but I believe it does here. God bless and merry Christmas, retxar |
||||||
178 | Why not eat blood/why accept transfusion | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 27929 | ||
JWs ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION OF ACTS 15:20,29 Christian commentaries show that abstaining from these "necessary things" was necessary to maintain peace between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. If Gentile Christians were to eat blood with their food it would offend Jewish Christians. In 1892 the first president of the JWs, C T Russell, agreed with this Christian interpretation. (Zion’s Watch Tower 1892 November 15) In 1909 Russell showed that the 4 prohibitions were part of the Law of Moses, didn’t really apply to Gentiles, but were necessary for peace. He wrote: "These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also." (The Watch Tower 1909 April 15 pp. 116-117) A DIFFERENT AND CHANGED VIEW: In 1939 the 2nd president of the JWs, J.F. Rutherford, wrote: "…… the life is in the blood and that blood must not be eaten. That would be true of a clean animal or an unclean one just the same. ……and if an animal is killed and the blood is not poured out, but eaten, then the man who does it is guilty of death, for the reason that no man shall drink blood without dying." (The Watchtower 1939 February 15 p.62) ANOTHER, CHANGED, AND I ASSUME CURRENT VIEW: The Watchtower 1944 December 1 stated: "Not only as a descendant of Noah, but now also as one bound by God’’s law to Israel which incorporated the everlasting covenant regarding the sanctity of life sustaining blood, the stranger was forbidden to eat or drink blood, whether by transfusion or by mouth." (complete article at www.adam.com.au/bstett/JwBloodDoctrineOrigin10.htm) My question to a JW on this would be, what happened to all the JW followers before 1944 who were led astray by the false prophet called The Watchtower, who lead them to believe a blood transfusion was OK, and now it says no man shall take blood without dying? I would not even discuss the blood issue with them. Even if they agree with you, it will accomplishment nothing if they refuse to recognize Jesus for who He is. Their mis-interpretation of Acts 15 won’t send them to hell, so let them believe what thy want. However, their mis-interpretation (and mis-translation) of John 1:1 will. Remember, when they step on our porch, they are on our territory, and it is our responsibility to give them the Gospel. Use the blood issue, as the Holy Spirit leads, to show them the lies they have been fed, so maybe they will accept the truth of the Gospel. Jesus was with God and He was God! Merry Christmas, retxar |
||||||
179 | Is private speaking in tongues Biblical? | Acts 2:6 | retxar | 27926 | ||
Hi Seacher, I agree, the context of 1Cor 14 is guidelines for use of tongues in a public worship, not private worship. Verse 28 speaks of proper use of un-interpreted tongues; silent in public worship only, and between himself and God, which would be private. Regardless, the only place in scripture tongues were EVER interpreted was Acts 2, NEVER anywhere else. The ONLY place tongues MUST be interpreted is in public worship. The reason for that is obvious; it’s for the protection of the uninformed and unbelievers (1Cor14:23). They would see the manifestation of the Holy Spirit as a joke and the Holy Spirit would be mocked (Acts 2:13). Merry Christmas bro, retxar |
||||||
180 | When will I speak/pray in tongues? | Acts 2:6 | retxar | 27862 | ||
I think you may be right, bro. Sometimes I think instead of saying "seeing is beleiving", we should be saying "beleiving is seeing". Merry Christmas my friend, retxar |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [17] >> |