Results 41 - 60 of 74
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Huron Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151001 | ||
Do you think that Acts 2:39 is meant to include ALL Generations that will ever live? Did all Christians in the Apostolic age that had been baptized with the Holy Spirit speak in tongues? Thanks! Huron |
||||||
42 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151031 | ||
"Scripture never stipulates that all who were baptized and received the Holy Spirit spoke in strange languages..." True, but in Acts it was the thing that convinced them that the various groups had received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, and in Acts 10. Getting back to the question, is there strong scriptural evidence that speaking in tongues was only for the Apostolic age besides 1 Cor 13:8-10? (The reason I say that is because it's possible to interpret "when the perfect comes" as heaven) Thanks! Huron |
||||||
43 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151080 | ||
Angel, Thanks for sticking with this discussion. I can see that you've put some time into your efforts. Before we continue our discussion, let me clarify a few things. I'm not saying that ALL were convinced. What I meant was that tongues were the sign by which the apostles were convinced that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in Acts chapter 10. Secondly, to keep things clear let's not confuse water baptism with baptism with the Holy Spirit. In two documented cases in Acts, Baptism with the Holy Spirit preceded water baptism. Acts 10:44-48 is a great example. The important question is whether Baptism with the Holy Spirit and the initial evidence of speaking with tongues is for ALL generations. Now, getting back to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. It's certainly possible to interpret that as Jesus's coming. Point remains the same. Neither heaven, or Jesus's second coming are past tense, so since the "perfect" has not come, it would seem to indicate that tongues hasn't ceased according to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. |
||||||
44 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151099 | ||
Kalos, Thanks for replying. In a lot of ways I agree with you, in some I don't. Tongues does not seem to be a basic doctrine. To me, basic topics include the life, death, burial of Christ, believing in His name and his being God, being baptized as a believer, fellowshipping with other believers, and witnessing to others. I would bet that if we were to go get a cup of coffee somewhere we would see that we agree on a LOT of things. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I've been a believer about 25 years. Now I'm revisiting all of the "truths" that I had been taught to make sure that I had not run in error. I'm hoping to examine the best arguments for and against tongues being for today. I've seen arguments that made sense for both views. I'm not a newby to the Word having read the NT through over twenty times, and the entire Bible several times. I appreciate your input. What are your views of tongues? |
||||||
45 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151101 | ||
Searcher, -Point #1 Interesting viewpoint. Would Hebrew believers then in your opinion still speak in tongues? Peter did not say that the prophecy was fulfilled, and thus no longer relevant. Contrast this with Matthew 21:4,5; 27:35 speaking of one time fulfilled events. #2 In Acts 2:16, Acts 10:45-46, and in Acts 19:6 speaking in tongues was the initial evidence that they looked at to determine that they had in fact been baptized with the Holy Spirit. Notice the use of the word "for" in Acts 10:46. Point #3 True, but when is the "perfect coming", and if it hasn't come yet is tongues still relevant. Thanks for your consideration! Huron |
||||||
46 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151149 | ||
Thanks for the posts. I agree with you on your view of MacArthur's statement. He deserves points for originality, though I don't agree with his conclusion. Huron |
||||||
47 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151158 | ||
On point #1, you have to read from Acts 2:4 through Acts 2:38 and 2:39 together. Pay special attention to 2:16 and 2:17,33. | ||||||
48 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151186 | ||
Angel, Good point about speaking in tongues benefitting the speaker only unless there is an interpreter. In the interests of Biblical accuracy, I disagree about water baptism and Baptism with the Holy Spirit. In Acts it talks about them being different events. Mike |
||||||
49 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151187 | ||
Searcher thanks for the post #'s. I hope I didn't come across as argumentative. I was trying to type quickly so I could call it a night. Huron |
||||||
50 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151219 | ||
Angel, I am in agreement with what you are saying. I think we both agree that Baptism with the Holy Spirit, Baptism, and Conversion are three different things. All are part of the life of the believer. Of course, the person in question becomes a Christian when he believes and enters the fold of the Great Shepherd. That same Shepherd will guide him to the water baptism and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. I think that we also can agree that there are too many "congragational views!" Huron |
||||||
51 | Can ANYONE believe? | Acts 10:34 | Huron | 125155 | ||
Would you say that everyone has the capacity to believe if they chose to do so after hearing the Word? Or, is this verse indicating that AFTER one believes THEN God doesn't doesn't show partiality? Thanks! Huron |
||||||
52 | "For" is to show the Gentiles were part | Acts 10:46 | Huron | 151160 | ||
The word "for" shows how Peter and the others recognized that the Holy Spirit had come upon the Gentiles. The fact that the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles was how Peter knew that the Gospel was for the Gentiles also, BUT the speaking in tongues and exalting God is what clued them in to it. | ||||||
53 | Acts 16:33 and infant baptism. | Acts 16:33 | Huron | 110053 | ||
Emmaus, Thank you for the links. I see that this issue is not as clear cut as I previously believed. There were some good points in the articles. Huron |
||||||
54 | Acts 16:33 and infant baptism. | Acts 16:33 | Huron | 110114 | ||
Searcher, Thanks for the input. I'm seeing merit in both sides of this issue: Pro infant baptism: The fact that Lydia's and the Philippian jailer's whole households were baptized introduces the possibility of infants being baptized. The New Testament was written at a time when all Christians were adult converts from Judism, or paganism. It makes sense for these to be baptized. The NT makes no reference to the procedure for baptizing those who were born to Christian parents. Should they not be baptized till they are old enough to chose to do so on their own? Baptized immediately? Should those be rebaptized once they reached a certain age? The NT doesn't say. Evidence against infant baptism: There are no clear and direct accounts were Christ or the Apostles engaged in the water baptism of infants, nor do they command us to do so. There are verses that talk about permitting Children to come to Christ (Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.), BUT there is no mention of baptism in this verse. When you see believing and baptism in the same sentence, believe comes first. (Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.) Based on that word order it seems that belief should proceed baptism, and it seems obvious that infants can't believe. At this point it seems that the evidence is inconclusive. I guess that the best strategy in dealing with questions like this is to not take a dogmatic position either for or against. Anyone else have any thoughts or points of view? Huron |
||||||
55 | Acts 16:33 and infant baptism. | Acts 16:33 | Huron | 125066 | ||
Interesting angle, but I'm not sure that Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles endorsed, or even allowed people to baptize themselves for their loved ones. Actually, it's a little unclear exactly what Paul meant in this verse. In any case, as far as I can tell, it's the only time in the NT that that phrase is used. Huron |
||||||
56 | Thanks guys. Appreciate the insight! | Rom 5:12 | Huron | 109112 | ||
Thanks guys. Appreciate the insight! | ||||||
57 | Romans 6:4 sanctification or salvation? | Rom 6:4 | Huron | 131452 | ||
Interesting. Baptism in a metaphorical sense. Don't believe I've been exposed to that interpretation before. | ||||||
58 | Reconciling Rom 8:39 with Heb 10:26 | Rom 8:39 | Huron | 116509 | ||
I kicked this topic around a little more yesteday and concluded that maybe this apparent dilemna won't be solved this side of eternity. Reading 2 Pet 2:20, Hebrews 6:4 and Luke 8:13 also seem to support the possibility of leaving Christ. On the other hand John 10:28,29 could be construed to support the other viewpoint. To sum up, I've come to the conclusion that: A) we could leave Christ if we chose to and B)short of leaving Christ, our sin won't separate us from his family. Huron |
||||||
59 | Reconciling Rom 8:39 with Heb 10:26 | Rom 8:39 | Huron | 116605 | ||
I'm comfortable with that. I think that it is a reasonable position when you look at the verses mentioned along with Luke 8:13, John 10:28,29. Where exactly the line is, I guess only God knows for sure. The best we can do is to look at all the related scriptures,say that God will never forsake us, but on the other hand we must be careful to not fall away. Huron |
||||||
60 | faith/regeneration | 1 Cor 2:14 | Huron | 95744 | ||
Thanks John! I've got another question on regeneration that dovetails with this one. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |