Recent content by Dino246

“Deaconess” isn’t in Scripture either.

“Yet” simply isn’t there, neither overtly no by implication.

I will probably add more later, but for now, just this one thought: The grammatically correct term is “female pastor”, not “woman pastor”. You wouldn’t say “My church has a man pastor”. As an aside, “woman doctor” is also wrong.

Isaiah 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect.... Romans 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake....

I don't disagree that there is abuse of "tongues"... but is it abused more than of any other aspect of Christianity? I think not. There is flagrant abuse of faith, of money, of healing, of prophecy, of preaching, of hermeneutics, and probably anything else you care to name. We don't argue about...

Really? You might want to re-read Scripture. Ancient Israel were "elect" and most of them were certainly not saved. I'm not interested in debating this; I'm only pointing out that this topic has been done to death many times. Ultimately, people either believe Scripture or they believe what...

Unless God gave you a specific timeline, be patient. Abraham waited over a decade for a son, Israel waited at least two centuries for Moses, and over a millenia for the Messiah. God is never late. :)

Let's expand the scope to see if it makes sense: If a Moslem dies for their cause, are they saved? If a Communist dies for their cause, are they saved? If an atheist dies for their cause, are they saved? The answer in all cases, including those you proposed, is No. There is one and only one...

Here we go with another Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist argument. Yawn. Don't you guys have something better to do?

It is utterly ridiculous to demand "proof" that something happening today is identical to something that occurred 2000 years ago. No matter the evidence, you may choose to dismiss it (as many cessationists do). On the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude, based on Scripture, that tongues today...

Here is your earlier post: "Peter stated that he saw and he heard and yet, scripture is more sure". Nowhere in the Scripture above does it say, "and yet, scripture is more sure". You have invented a sense that is not in the text at all, and thereby engaged in eisegesis. I know you refuse to...

Your position is based on a logical fallacy. It is your claim that the manifestations seen today are not the same thing as in the early Church. It's your responsibility to prove your case, which you have completely failed to do. Don't try to reverse the burden of proof. Calling Blain "arrogant"...

They aren't "related to" languages; they are languages. That's not what Scripture says. Verses 45-46 explain quite adequately: "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking...

That's not what Peter said, and certainly not what he implied. Try again.

You're right, He can. He can and frequently does also speak directly to people outside of Scripture. It's not a question of need; it's a question of His sovereign choice to continue speaking. I'm not going to attempt to muzzle Him whether by bad hermeneutics or prejudicial treatment of the subject.