The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

sheeesh talk about side stepping the issue that is still in front of your face. HEY CHUCK... you don't ask a question that would be redundant to ask if it was simply thought that one believed they had received the HS by blind faith. THE ISSUE STILL REMAINS! ONE WOULD EXPECT that question to be asked if there was a expectation of the manifested presence of the Spirit as witness. Especially since you have another witness that shows PEOPLE KNEW that they had not "received" the HS and simply believing and being baptized was not the expectation "to know" in Acts 8.

Well, write Chuck a letter and complain, then.

"This generation seeketh a sign." You're insisting on a "sign" aren't you?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by notofworks

So you believe Simon the sorcerer "saw" tongues? How does one do that? Are you speaking of the cloven tongues of fire resting on one's head or tongues that he was speaking? Whichever, I've never "seen" tongues. I've heard them (Alleged tongues, anyway). Earlier in Acts 8 it was noted the great joy that was present. Simon certainly could have seen that.

You yawned. Sorry for boring you.

You "Tongues-only" folks insist that Acts 2 is the benchmark for all history in establishing precedent for salvation. I have never seen tongues in my lifetime, allegedly or otherwise, nor anything else that happened in the upper room account. I've never seen any sound, come to think of it.

I've never seen fire on top of anyone's head, a rushing mighty wind, and I haven't seen people speak in a language that was intelligible to someone who speaks another language. Yet you "Tongues-only" people insist that we must do things just like Acts 2.

So I'll make a deal with you...when you see those things take place, I'll give tongues a shot. Until then, I'll fulfill every command the bible gives me for salvation and in the process, be empowered everyday of my life by the power of the Holy Spirit that resides in me!

yes... you do bore me but it's not really you per se but the same old responses. After a while it gets old. Nothing has changed in the decades I have debated. Baptism, Works, Faith and all the rest...

Go for it.... live the life you believe he leads you to live. "If" it is his will you won't find argument from me.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Well, write Chuck a letter and complain, then.

"This generation seeketh a sign." You're insisting on a "sign" aren't you?

same out of context use as usual... Congrats. nah I would rather write to even worse people like Dillow, Stanley, and host of others...

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

From RCC, all us Protestants are of a 'Reformed' nature.

No, I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not even overly concerned with what I'm called.

Do you believe in "original sin" doctrine?
Preservation of the Saints?
Unconditional Election?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

yes... you do bore me but it's not really you per se but the same old responses. After a while it gets old. Nothing has changed in the decades I have debated. Baptism, Works, Faith and all the rest...

Go for it.... live the life you believe he leads you to live. "If" it is his will you won't find argument from me.

Do you have any idea how old it gets to hear the same old, "What did Simon see" question? But there's an issue that you "Tongues-only" folks ignore as well. I asked it and you completely blew it off. If the Acts 2 event is the benchmark for salvation, why have we never seen it repeated? Literally, I've never seen one element of that day take place.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Do you have any idea how old it gets to hear the same old, "What did Simon see" question? But there's an issue that you "Tongues-only" folks ignore as well. I asked it and you completely blew it off. If the Acts 2 event is the benchmark for salvation, why have we never seen it repeated? Literally, I've never seen one element of that day take place.

what was the benchmark? I stated before my point on this. Peter said in Acts 11 concerning the Gentiles the same thing happened to them concerning the Spirit they also experienced. What was that? Tongues as the manifest presence of the Spirit falling upon them and bearing witness.
Acts 8 which was before would be no different as they "expected" such a manifestation and KNEW they had not received.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

what was the benchmark? I stated before my point on this. Peter said in Acts 11 concerning the Gentiles the same thing happened to them concerning the Spirit they also experienced. What was that? Tongues as the manifest presence of the Spirit falling upon them and bearing witness.
Acts 8 which was before would be no different as they "expected" such a manifestation and KNEW they had not received.

Why do you assume they expected tongues in Acts 8? There was only one account of it before Acts 8... that's hardly enough to show how they would expect what happened once before to happen again right then.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

what was the benchmark? I stated before my point on this. Peter said in Acts 11 concerning the Gentiles the same thing happened to them concerning the Spirit they also experienced. What was that? Tongues as the manifest presence of the Spirit falling upon them and bearing witness.
Acts 8 which was before would be no different as they "expected" such a manifestation and KNEW they had not received.

No, you're not answering. The tongues experience originates in Acts 2...the hermeneutical term is, "The Law of the First Mention"...and is the original example used for "speaking in other tongues."

So I'm asking you, have you ever seen the Day of Pentecost elements take place, specifically:

1) Cloven tongues of fire set on heads;
2) Mighty Rushing Wind;
3) Spoken words that were understood by speakers of another language?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Why do you assume they expected tongues in Acts 8? There was only one account of it before Acts 8... that's hardly enough to show how they would expect what happened once before to happen again right then.

ROFL!!! oh of course we see everything that ever happened in the pages of Acts.... LOL! If it was the normal experience which at this point would have been many years it simply a general point here and there by LUKE about these events explaining sometimes the whole mindset while limiting the experience to simply baptism of which many would have waited for the Spirit like Acts 8.

1) Acts 8 clearly shows expectation of reception not just simple belief. We can argue about what "it" was but the clear thing is that the expectation of receiving the Spirit is not of blind faith of reception. THEY KNEW THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED! You cannot say that about the blind faith position. That position does not fit Acts 8 or Acts 19. Belief is the basis needed to obtain or receive but it does not make for automatic reception which is also evidenced not the evidence of reception per these texts.

2) If was perceived normal to expect what in the world does a penning of "certain" events have to do with all that happened not written. You are acting like from Acts 2 to acts 8 nobody ever spoke in tongues again. That is how the books lays it out as stories but the book is limited in scope to some events not the whole of everything that ever happened. You assume it was not normal that it was not the norm I assume it was based on the expectation and the reaction of the people. Not simply because Luke did not get into detail on every account that ever happened. Acts 2 and 8 has quite a bit of time between them.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by notofworks

No, you're not answering. The tongues experience originates in Acts 2...the hermeneutical term is, "The Law of the First Mention"...and is the original example used for "speaking in other tongues."

So I'm asking you, have you ever seen the Day of Pentecost elements take place, specifically:

1) Cloven tongues of fire set on heads;
2) Mighty Rushing Wind;
3) Spoken words that were understood by speakers of another language?

ROFL there is no "law of first mention".... that is so inconsistent. ROFL! HAHAHAHA now that was funny! People have basically used it for word meanings which "sometimes" is true in how it works but in others it is ignored. IN part yes it would be correct which would be common sense of language concerning root meanings of words but your use.......LOL! sorry doesn't work as a precedent. God consistently uses natural principles to give symbol but does not mean Acts 2 as a whole is a precedent. Tongues as witness is a natural element of symbol of God bearing witness and is consistent when the mentioning of the Spirit is being poured out. Nowhere does the other aspects carry into the rest of the experiences.