Results 181 - 200 of 332
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | retxar | 49059 | ||
What's you take on the early church father's quote of Acts 8:37 that preceeded the earlest known manuscripts? What could they have been reading? thanks, retxar |
||||||
182 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | retxar | 49075 | ||
Thanks Tim, Keep me honest bro and see if the quote I posted checks out or not! To me (if it checks out) this would assure those who might wonder if Acts 8:37 is authentic or not, to believe that it is. I admit it’s not iron clad evidence that Acts 8:37 was dropped from the earlier known manuscripts, but I’m sure anyone would have to admit it is at least a possibility. God bless! retxar |
||||||
183 | Does speaking in tongues come naturally? | Acts | retxar | 92188 | ||
Greetings searcher, long time no see! What happened in John 20:22? The disciples received the Holy Spirit exactly as Jesus said and exactly as He had prophesied. The disciples HAD to receive the Holy Spirit at this point, otherwise John 7:39 would not be true. John 20:22 fulfills John 7:39 whereby those believing Jesus had been raised from the dead (Rom 10:9) would receive the Holy Spirit. What happened in Acts 2:4? Exactly what it says "And they were all FILLED with the Holy Spirit..." (not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which happened when they believed in John 20:22). Note: Jesus referred to the initial FILLING of the Holy Spirit as being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" in Acts 1:5. So those who protest that being “filled with the Holy Spirit” is improperly referred to as being “baptized with the Holy Spirit”, are also trying to correct Jesus! Be ye filled with the Spirit! retxar |
||||||
184 | What is spiritual baptism? | Acts 1:5 | retxar | 170025 | ||
Greetings again bro, long time, no see! I think we agree here friend, but I think our terminology is different. I too know the WORD clearly teaches that being filled with the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as being baptized into the body of Christ and indwelt with the Holy Spirit at conversion. However, I believe scripture clearly teaches that being baptized into the body of Christ is not the same thing (scripturally), as being baptized with the Holy Spirit. However, I do believe that scripture clearly teaches that the initial filling on the Holy Spirit is EXACTLY the same thing as being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Just so people will understand what I mean, I can use different words if I need to (ie I can say filled instead of baptized), but how can I be that wrong if I use the same words Jesus did? In Acts 1:5 Jesus said: for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT not many days from now. In ...not many days from then... the WORD says in Acts 2:4 And they were all FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT... Surley you will agree that being baptized with the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit are the the same thing here are they not? This seems to easy to see for me, so if I am overlooking something, or if you think Jesus's words in Acts 1:5 were fulfilled at some place other that Acts 2:4, please let me know. retxar |
||||||
185 | When will I speak/pray in tongues? | Acts 2:6 | retxar | 27859 | ||
You said that plenty eloquently for me, bro. Good word! What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding.(1Co 14:15a) retxar |
||||||
186 | 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 |
||||||
187 | 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 |
||||||
188 | 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 |
||||||
189 | 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 |
||||||
190 | 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 |
||||||
191 | 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 |
||||||
192 | 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 |
||||||
193 | Jesus' name baptism? | Acts 2:38 | retxar | 29503 | ||
The name common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is GOD. retxar |
||||||
194 | Jesus' name baptism? | Acts 2:38 | retxar | 29511 | ||
If Jesus is also the Father and the Holy Spirit, that was a neat trick He pulled on us in Luke 3:22, huh? Why you reckon He did that? Are you the former RevC that was here a while back? Just curious. retxar |
||||||
195 | "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" | Acts 16:30 | retxar | 52593 | ||
Why did Christ come? TO SAVE: Matthew 9:13; Luke 19:10; 1 Timothy 1:15. How did He save? NOT BY BAPTISM: John 4:2, HOW THEN? BY BLOOD: Ephesians 1:7; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5. What is the gospel? 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. TO ADD WATER IS HERESY: Galatians 1:8,9. How can one be saved? THROUGH FAITH -- BELIEVING: John 3:14,16,36, 6:47, 8:24, 11:25, 14:1, 20:30,31; Acts 10:43, 13:38; Romans 1:16, 4:3, 4:5, 10:9,10; l Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 1:13; 2 Timothy 1:12; 2 Peter 2:7. Who then should be baptized? THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SAVED: Acts 2:41, 8:37, 10:47, 16:31-33 | ||||||
196 | "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" | Acts 16:30 | retxar | 52684 | ||
I don't discount John 3:5, but I do prefer Jesus's interpretation, and not man's, as with the parallel He gave us in just the very next verse! Grace thru Faith! retxar |
||||||
197 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | retxar | 21782 | ||
Awesome word, bro "God's way is beyond human intellect and human emotion, both of which can lead us to a path of little faith and a lot of religion." Tim Moran 11-08-2001 God bless, retxar |
||||||
198 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | retxar | 21785 | ||
Awesome word, bro! "God's way is beyond human intellect and human emotion, both of which can lead us to a path of little faith and a lot of religion." charis 11-08-2001 (sorry, gave Tim the credit a minute a go, sorry) God bless, retxar |
||||||
199 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | retxar | 21866 | ||
I don’t know if I want to pick up this gauntlet, but I know I do not want to argue! This leg of the tree is a little bit short, so maybe I can even things up a bit if nothing else! I claim neither Calvinism nor Arminianism. Maybe this is why. When I was growing up, we had a fired up little old lady in our church. Many times she would speak out against false doctrine being taught in the world. She always referred to them as the evil “is’ems” of the world. Maybe that is what keeps me from taking on the label of anything that has “ism” as the suffix! Anyway, I know I am probably more A than C. I agree with all the points of Arminianism except I am not sure of point five (falling from grace). I know people do indeed fall away, I’m just not sure if they were true believers or were just “so-called believers.” I know the Word gives us assurance that our salvation is secure and guaranteed (Eph 1:13-14). However, I cannot ignore scripture that warns those who would choose to turn their back on Jesus (2Pe 2:20-21). I am confident and secure of my salvation. But I’m not sure if the ones spoke of in 2Pe 2:20-21 and other places were not true believers. My teaching and upbringing have told me that these people could not have ever been believers, and I would not argue this point, but I am not sure that is what the Word declares. I know many who would claim to be A that would be confident that true believers can never choose to quit believing. I also know many who would claim to be C that would tell me that Jesus died for all. However, I think if a person has a modified belief of any of the five points of each doctrine, they can claim neither. There are five points of each doctrine that is spelled out plainly. The way I see it, the answer to the question of whether one is C and A must be “all of the above?”, not multiple choice, pick and choose, or change and modify. Chuck Smith has a booklet called Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God. Here is a quote from it that may be of interest. “It is not easy to maintain the unity of the Spirit among us on these matters. It seems that the sovereignty of God and human responsibility are like two parallel lines that do not seem to intersect within our finite minds. God's ways are "past finding out" (Romans 11:33), and the Bible warns us to "lean not unto thy own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5). To say what God says in the Bible - no more and no less - is not always easy, comfortable, or completely understandable. But Scripture tells us that the wisdom from above will be loving and kind toward all, seeking the unity of the believers, not trying to find ways to divide and separate from one another. May God help us all to love each other, to be kind, tenderhearted, forgiving one another as Jesus Christ has forgiven us (Ephesians 4:32)! In difficult doctrinal matters, may we have gracious attitudes and humble hearts, desiring most of all to please Him who has called us to serve Him in the body of Christ. Discussion - YES! Disagreements - YES! Division - NO! Jesus said, "By their fruit ye shall know them." When a particular position on the Scriptures causes one to become argumentative, legalistic, and divisive, I question the validity of that position. I seek to embrace those things that tend to make me more loving and kind, more forgiving and merciful. I know then that I am becoming more like my Lord. If you have come to a strong personal conviction on one side of a doctrinal issue, please grant us the privilege of first seeing how it has helped you to become more Christ-like in your nature, and then we will judge whether we need to come to that same persuasion. Let us always be certain to look at the fruit of the teaching. Seek those things that produce the loving nature of Jesus in our lives. I would rather have the wrong facts and a right attitude, than right facts and a wrong attitude. God can change my understanding of the facts in a moment, but it often takes a lifetime to effect changes of attitude.” Chuck Smith (calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/books/caatwog.htm) Jesus knows all!! retxar |
||||||
200 | Is it wrong to have pictures of Jesus? | Rom 1:23 | retxar | 27599 | ||
Hi Johnny, I don't think hair length has anything to do with it. What is long? Whose definition are we going to use? Yours, mine, my kids, the Army? Where is the definition of “long” found in the Word anyway? I don’t have any pictures of Jesus on my walls, but I have never saw anything wrong with those that do. God has never checked my spirit concerning it. I’m not concerned if they are an accurate portrayal of what Jesus looked like or not, I am talking about any pictures at all. I asked the question because of something I read in a Vernon McGee commentary. “I do not like to see pictures of Jesus, as Paul said that we know Him no longer after the flesh (see 2Cor. 5:16). He is the glorified Christ. He is not that picture you have hanging on your wall, my friend. If He came into your room, you would fall on your face before Him. He is the glorified Christ today. Don't slur our God by having a picture of Him!” J. Vernon McGee's Thru The Bible retxar PS. I'm not agreeing with what McGee said here, I'm just wondering what the forum thinks. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [17] >> |