Baptism and holy spirit
- Thread starter soberxp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You seem to have trouble responding without being sarcastic or condescending.
You make some good points, it could be hyperbolic. But it could also be that when a person speaks in tongues, he is speaking a language of men or angels. Whether it's hyperbolic or not, it does not change what speaking in tongues is (a manifestation of the gift of the Holy Spirit), or that God wants Christians to do it.
Yes, both the NASB and NIV are much better translations than the NLT.
LOL Guess they were not Calvinists.I'm really not following you on the self serving thing...
strange that Apostles wrote the NT though
what were they thinking? didn't they know you were coming on board? (kinda joking)
They were used of God to write the NT but they did not have a complete copy for a couple decades. They were Jews so they used the OT. Same thing today in that you cannot witness to a Jew from the NT. Jews do not receive they authority of the NT. Blinded as part of the consequences of the cry for the blood of Jesus to be on them and their children.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Sarcastic? Yes. Condescending? Not at all..
I'm sorry you have a problem with sarcasm, but I have difficulty refraining from sarcasm when people are so convinced that their belief is "right" that they refuse to read and understand scripture that is so plainly understood by most other people.
You seem to want to reply abruptly and sort of rudely, so, we can both let our "feelers" be hurt, or we can move on with the discussion. I will attempt to hold back on the sarcasm, since it upsets you.
Well, in all actuality, it wouldn't be humans speaking the language of angels, per se, but God energizing man to speak the language of angels. But again, if not done in love - worthless nothing!Yes, I'm certain you do!I was comparing: don't move even if your hair catches on fire, to the same device used in: if I were to speak every known human language and even the language that angels speak.
That isn't to say the angels don't speak some language that isn't of earth, they very well could. But neither is it to say that paul was declaring that angels speak some special language and humans can speak that very language they speak.
So if I were to insist that I know for a fact that angels don't speak some language humans don't speak, I would be wrong because I can't know that. Conversely, if I were to say angels do speak some language humans don't speak but that believers can speak that language, I would also be wrong, because I can't know that.
What, you've never hard to deal with grumpy, sarcastic old men...?
It does say "senior" member under his name you know.
If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels...
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels...
You see these two renderings as radically different...?
Yes, so I can see that it could be hyperbolic in nature but it doesn't negate the fact that when one speaks in tongues they are "speaking the tongues of men or of angels". The context of verses is emphasizing that if I do all these things, have all these things energized by God but operate them without love - I am nothing. So hey, we all agree!
I don't know that it upsets me. I just think it's a little ... rude.
I can at times be abrupt, but I try not to be rude.
I understand that I am in a definite minority in believing that speaking in tongues (and the rest of the manifestations) are for today. Just because most people believe or understand something a certain way does not mean they are right.
I honestly don't have a problem with someone thinking they are speaking in some heavenly language or are speaking a language that is not of earth or never has been of earth. All will find out one day. It's not a biggie for me.
The only one I really have even a slight twinge of problem with has been sir waggles, when he states that if one hasn't ever spoken in tongues then they have not received the Holy Spirit. It doesn't make me mad. It's just perplexing to have met God and received His Spirit and to be told you have not!
The only one I really have even a slight twinge of problem with has been sir waggles, when he states that if one hasn't ever spoken in tongues then they have not received the Holy Spirit. It doesn't make me mad. It's just perplexing to have met God and received His Spirit and to be told you have not!
I don't know that it upsets me. I just think it's a little ... rude.
I can at times be abrupt, but I try not to be rude.
I understand that I am in a definite minority in believing that speaking in tongues (and the rest of the manifestations) are for today. Just because most people believe or understand something a certain way does not mean they are right.
I don't think you ARE in the minority. I think most believe the Spirit manifests/gifts to each in whatever way He will, for the good of the body. I think most do NOT believe that tongues have ceased or that healing has ceased, etc.
Yes, different, but the meaning has not been jacked around into nonsense or hereticalness. Which is why you made me laugh.
I bet if you did a poll you'd find that most people on this forum are cessationists. ...could be wrong.
The first gives the sense that if a person knew all human languages...
The second clearly refers to the manifestation of speaking in tongues.
At least that's how I see the difference.
I don't know that it upsets me. I just think it's a little ... rude.
I can at times be abrupt, but I try not to be rude.
I understand that I am in a definite minority in believing that speaking in tongues (and the rest of the manifestations) are for today. Just because most people believe or understand something a certain way does not mean they are right.
Well...our Lord bore much more than a little rudeness out of love for us. I can handle a little rudeness or abruptness. It's not like it sheds any of my blood. It doesn't even leave a mark. Besides, I happen to know he's missing most of his teeth as old as he is. He can't hurt you.
Hmm...I might actually bet you on that. I have found very few cessasionists in my travels in here...
Hmm...we see the core of the verse as being different. You see the topic as being about a certain manifestation/gift and I see the thrust as being that...no manifestation or gift of the Spirit is worth a hill of beans without love being expressed in us and through us by the Spirit...
Reminds me of those infernal drawings we had to do in English class where we had to pick out all the parts of a sentence and diagram them. I would have listed the main topic of the sentence as being love. You would have listed it as being tongues. An English teacher would have to say which is the right main topic of the sentence...maybe one will come in here.