I have never heard tongues as it was on this day speaking about the wonderful works of god I have never understood tongue at all so I guess the accounts we are hearing in the churches are not the same acts2 accounts..
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
I have never heard tongues as it was on this day speaking about the wonderful works of god I have never understood tongue at all so I guess the accounts we are hearing in the churches are not the same acts2 accounts..
How would we know without knowing more than English?
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Doesn't the Spirit already know what languages the hearers can understand and thus inspire those languages as in Acts 2?
Sure the Spirit knows, but the bible never stated the Spirit inspires languages the hearers know for the tongue talkers to speak to them.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
"Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting. Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised are doing it for just one reason. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save."
These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.
What about the notion that Salvation is a process that begins when one repents with saving faith?
For example, a man turns to Jesus and repents of his sins at home and then decides to go to church to be water baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost. While on the way to church he dies in a tragic car accident. Many would say he wasn't saved because he was never water baptized or filled with the Holy Ghost. But he was enrout with a faithful and obedient heart. Does God focus on the faith or the sacrament? I believe he was saved. However, if half way to church he changes his mind and decides to drive back home to drink bottle of vodka and dies in a tragic car accident he will be lost. This is because his faithless heart was full of rebellion.
I believe that God desires that all know him outside of the stained glass traditions of the Trinity. I believe that God desires all to repent of sin, be water baptized in Jesus name, and filled with the Holy Ghost. However, I don't see these as legalistic steps, but rather spiritual realities experienced while on the journey. I know men in other denominations who have set out on their journey with Jesus and they're sitll in the woods of tradition. This doesn't mean they aren't "saved"... it simply means that they haven't experienced the full NT experience. I believe God desires all believers to enter into that NT reality.
Now I am confused.... about everything said in this thread...
the only thing I am not confused about is that the cross alone cannot save.
that aint biblical and not of works doesnt even believe that.
The cross will not save the unwilling. Salvation takes place when one turns to the cross... or more exact, when one embraces the Gospel (death, burial and resurrection)
There has never really been an argument about that.
The argument has always been what form that embracing takes.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Now I am confused.... about everything said in this thread...
the only thing I am not confused about is that the cross alone cannot save.
that aint biblical and not of works doesnt even believe that.
The cross will not save the unwilling. Salvation takes place when one turns to the cross... or more exact, when one embraces the Gospel (death, burial and resurrection)
There has never really been an argument about that.
The argument has always been what form that embracing takes.
"The cross of Christ alone can save." That's a direct quote from The Holy Bible, so yeah, I believe it!
which would or could be a reference to us needing to have the "faithfulness of Christ"
See, there you go again getting it to say what you want it to say. I think it's actually in reference to the fact that only the cross of Christ can save.
Well, the question might be, what if I don't go to hell and The Illegalist and I aren't in the same place?
Hybrid Mode
