Old habits dye hard - ask any Carmelite monk...
ALL Believers CANNOT Afford to Follow A Church Out of Habit
- Thread starter Enow
- 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.
That is why it is on God to cause the increase.. it is on God peradventuring to recover any from the snare of the devil in any religious works done in unbelief. Jesus is willing and able to forgive all sins when we recognize them by His help & by His grace to confess them and defend the faith which we came to Him for in having been saved by Him by simply believing in Him as His word promised.
Over the course of the year, as a person who is considered a leader in the workplace, I have discovered how frustrating it is when you have people "under" you who like think they can just do their own thing and not be accountable and not act apart as one unit, or apart of the body towards a specific cause.
Then I realised how this very same thing applies to the church.
Then I realised how this very same thing applies to the church.
As Christ is the head of every believer so should He be the Head of every assembly, but that is not always the case. In spiritual warfare, it is the leaders that are tempted to go astray when pride comes by religious works or even the love of money can come to.
When a church submits to the Word of God, including the leaders, then Christ is leading them by His words within the assembly and for their individual lives when they go home and abroad.
When a church submits to the Word of God, including the leaders, then Christ is leading them by His words within the assembly and for their individual lives when they go home and abroad.
No. Speaking in tongues is not a sign for the believers to know that they are saved. Tongues only serve as a sign to the unbelievers when God speak to them through saved believers in their native tongue. 1 Corinthians 14:20-22
Nope. It is not. Again, you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ.
You can find a lot of examples in Acts where new believers did not speak in tongues when they got saved. The Ethiopian eunuch did not speak in tongues is one such example...
When you had first believed in Jesus Christ, you had received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father at your salvation.
Galatians 3:[SUP]14 [/SUP]That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.....[SUP]26 [/SUP]For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 1:[SUP]11 [/SUP]In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:[SUP] 12 [/SUP]That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.[SUP] 13 [/SUP]In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,[SUP]14 [/SUP]Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.[SUP]15 [/SUP]Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
So relax.... you have been saved since you first believed in Him after having known the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Nope. It is not. Again, you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ.
You can find a lot of examples in Acts where new believers did not speak in tongues when they got saved. The Ethiopian eunuch did not speak in tongues is one such example...
When you had first believed in Jesus Christ, you had received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father at your salvation.
Galatians 3:[SUP]14 [/SUP]That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.....[SUP]26 [/SUP]For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 1:[SUP]11 [/SUP]In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:[SUP] 12 [/SUP]That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.[SUP] 13 [/SUP]In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,[SUP]14 [/SUP]Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.[SUP]15 [/SUP]Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
So relax.... you have been saved since you first believed in Him after having known the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Enow, in post #19, you quoted Acts 10:44-46;
"4 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[a] and praising God."
Then you go on to say that speaking in tongues is only a sign to unbelievers, yet in this passage it is a sign to believers.
You have a contradiction on your hands.
You need to back track and clear things up.
The problem is, I don't think you can.
You are teaching a contradiction, trying to teach us the Bible but you don't know it.
"4 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[a] and praising God."
Then you go on to say that speaking in tongues is only a sign to unbelievers, yet in this passage it is a sign to believers.
You have a contradiction on your hands.
You need to back track and clear things up.
The problem is, I don't think you can.
You are teaching a contradiction, trying to teach us the Bible but you don't know it.
Last edited:
Acts 10:[SUP]42 [/SUP]And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.[SUP] 43 [/SUP]To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.[SUP]44 [/SUP]While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.[SUP]45 [/SUP]And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.[SUP]46 [/SUP]For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,[SUP] 47 [/SUP]Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?[SUP]48 [/SUP]And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
I had quoted Acts 10:44-48 to show water baptism is not necessary for salvation which was in response to your earlier inquiry about water baptism. Then you took that reference, cutting out the last 2 verses to be about tongues as a sign that a believer had received salvation. I did not use that reference to make that point. You are applying it as if I was.
Then I pointed out in response to your misapplication of that reference that in another part of the Book of Acts the Ethiopian eunuch did not speak in tongues even after being water baptized by Philip.
So I believe that you lost track of the conversation between us since your initial inquiry for which I had replied to was about whether water baptism is necessary for salvation. Tongues is not for why I had referenced Acts 10:44-48.
You taking that reference to mean tongues is a sign that a believer is saved is an error on your part in misapplying what I had referenced Acts 10:44-48 for.
I had quoted Acts 10:44-48 to show water baptism is not necessary for salvation which was in response to your earlier inquiry about water baptism. Then you took that reference, cutting out the last 2 verses to be about tongues as a sign that a believer had received salvation. I did not use that reference to make that point. You are applying it as if I was.
Then I pointed out in response to your misapplication of that reference that in another part of the Book of Acts the Ethiopian eunuch did not speak in tongues even after being water baptized by Philip.
So I believe that you lost track of the conversation between us since your initial inquiry for which I had replied to was about whether water baptism is necessary for salvation. Tongues is not for why I had referenced Acts 10:44-48.
You taking that reference to mean tongues is a sign that a believer is saved is an error on your part in misapplying what I had referenced Acts 10:44-48 for.
Well, maybe you didn't mean to use it the way I'm using it, but it still says it.
It still shows that believers were convinced of salvation by hearing others speak in tongues.
You still said above that tongues is only a sign to unbelievers.
You still have a contradiction on your hands.
And as usual, people hate to admit they may be wrong about anything, it hurts their egos, and so they try to get out of it, hoping the problem will just go away.
It still shows that believers were convinced of salvation by hearing others speak in tongues.
You still said above that tongues is only a sign to unbelievers.
You still have a contradiction on your hands.
And as usual, people hate to admit they may be wrong about anything, it hurts their egos, and so they try to get out of it, hoping the problem will just go away.
No I think this is just a case of you nitpicking a verse to make your own point and it's pretty obvious to someone looking from the outside in on this conversation. Yes in this one case Peter did see the gentiles receive the miracle of tongues and it did "prove" to him that they received His Spirit, but how in the world are you trying to make this case mean that all believers for all times will prove their salvation to other believers by the gift of tongues? That's so intellectually dishonest it's not even funny.
What are we to make of 1 Cor 14:21-23 if what your trying to imply is true?
1 Cor 14:21-23
21 It is written in the Law: “By strange tongues and foreign lips I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to Me, says the Lord.” 22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who are uninstructed or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds?
I mean is it unclear when Paul writes "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers"? What's you point here? What are you trying to correct him on?
What are we to make of 1 Cor 14:21-23 if what your trying to imply is true?
1 Cor 14:21-23
21 It is written in the Law: “By strange tongues and foreign lips I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to Me, says the Lord.” 22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who are uninstructed or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds?
I mean is it unclear when Paul writes "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers"? What's you point here? What are you trying to correct him on?
I had posted in #26 the reference of 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 to reprove how you were misapplying Acts 10:44-48 about tongues being a sign or proof to believers to know that they were saved.
The poster, Jimbone, had quoted 1 Corinthians 14:21-23 for your reading in post # 30.
So there is no contradiction. You just seem to be deflecting from the point from which I was referencing Acts 10:44-48 for as if it is signifying speaking in tongues as a sign for salvation rather than doing away with the act of water baptism for the assurance of salvation which was the initial course of our discussion.
So the problem is on your part. You started an off topic as a side bar discussion going into water baptism and then went on to tongues as a sign for believers to know that they were saved... and now a point of pride to my refusing your misapplication of the scripture.
I forgive you, brother.
The poster, Jimbone, had quoted 1 Corinthians 14:21-23 for your reading in post # 30.
So there is no contradiction. You just seem to be deflecting from the point from which I was referencing Acts 10:44-48 for as if it is signifying speaking in tongues as a sign for salvation rather than doing away with the act of water baptism for the assurance of salvation which was the initial course of our discussion.
So the problem is on your part. You started an off topic as a side bar discussion going into water baptism and then went on to tongues as a sign for believers to know that they were saved... and now a point of pride to my refusing your misapplication of the scripture.
I forgive you, brother.
Last edited:
That sounds like the kind of response one makes when you have been shown how wrong you are and have no answer to it. So because "you don't know me" makes my argument obsolete? Also in the next comment where you tell him "Well, I don't forgive you for twisting Scripture to fit your needs", I say that is the pot calling the kettle black, and you don't forgive him?
Mat 6:14,15
14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.
If ANYONE here is wrong I say it is you that needs to humble himself. That said I'm sorry if my comment came off unnecessarily offensive, but you were just wrong, now how about admit it, man up and move forward without having to attack other Christians.
Mat 6:14,15
14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.
If ANYONE here is wrong I say it is you that needs to humble himself. That said I'm sorry if my comment came off unnecessarily offensive, but you were just wrong, now how about admit it, man up and move forward without having to attack other Christians.