|
|
USER COMMENTS BY CBCPREACHER |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 3 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
10/12/07 7:26 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Amen, Fellow Saint! I was thinking just a bit ago, I want to make it perfectly clear for those on here who question what I believe. I belive that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be saved without faith, repentance, regeneration, good works, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (without the tongues). And all of these things are part of the gift of salvation that God gives to those that were chosen before the foundation of the world by the Father, purchased by the completed work of the precious Lamb of God upon the cross, and worked in the life of the elect by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is none of spiritually dead man and all of sovereign, gracious God. That is what we see in Eph. 2:8-10-"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" and also Phil. 2:12,13, "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." It is also brought out in Rom.8:28-39 and also chapter 9. |
|
|
10/12/07 5:21 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Good afternoon,Fellow Saint!Hope you had a great day! Abigail,in your post from today at 2:20 AM,you ranted about some things I never said.The tongues thing lasted for about 10 years.After the initial experience,it was something I did because I had "received the Holy Spirit".I didn't do it for any of the reasons you posted,and I don't believe I was "intentionally" faking it. Notice the word "intentionally".I thought I was doing the right thing. I can't explain what happened or why I continued on for so long,but I will tell you that,other than making me more popular in the church I attended, it didn't do anything for me spiritually. As to your question about the gospels and Acts,you keep changing the question.Before you wanted chapter and verse.Now you want to know by what authority I "condemn the gospels,the words of Jesus,as being just "historical,"of passing interest, but of no use to people truly wanting to know how to be saved,to avoid Hell and attain Heaven,to live a life pleasing to God."You made this up because you will nowhere find a post that I wrote that even hints at this! I answered your original question, that it is a proper approach to interpreting historical events,to go to the teaching books of the Bible, the epistles, to build our doctrine. |
|
|
10/12/07 4:50 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Abigail, you keep stating that the discussion is about "whether the Gifts of the Spirit and the initial evidence of Speaking in Tongues is still available to the Church today." First of all, other than the few events in the book of Acts, you cannot prove that tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The sign was given to the first century believers so that THEY could know that the promise had been fulfilled. We now have the completed canon of scripture which records those events. Therefore, we know that He has come and that He is given to every believer at the moment of salvation. The other part of the question, I will admit, leaves a little more room for discussion. Having said that, we see less and less of the gifts at work as we move closer to the completion of scripture. I wat to just ask, since you so often quote the Mark 16 passage, why don't we see the other "signs" in the Pent/Char movement as much as we do the tongues? Is it because the other "signs" require a miracle that has to be verified whereas speaking in tongues doesn't require proof that it is in fact an intelligible language? BTW, the tongues on the Day of Pentecost were known languages. The other passages also seem to indicate the same. Is yours a known language? Will continue.. |
|
|
10/11/07 10:06 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Fellow Saint, that's the point that is so necessary here. The Bible says that many will be deceived. Just as walking an aisle or saying a prayer never saved anyone, neither does speaking in tongues. Like I said, if it is so necessary, why don't all believers do it? Or maybe, as a common sense conclusion of the Pentecostal doctrine would give us, if you don't speak in tongues, you don't have the Holy Spirit, therefore, you aren't saved. I can't believe that something so significant to our christian walk, as Abigail put it, would not be given to us by our Heavenly Father who desires to give good gifts to His children. The Bible says the Spirit is a gift (Acts 2:38) and that He is received when we come to Christ in faith and repentance. Peter didn't tell the people on the Day of Pentecost to tarry and pray. He told them that they would receive the Spirit when they came to Christ. God is more willing to give than we are to receive, but He would not withhold something as important as the Spirit from us. |
|
|
10/11/07 9:49 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Abigail, "If so, why not now? An opportunist, a man-pleaser?" Doesn't sound much like, "In the love of Jesus Christ our Lord, "Abigail". The real evidence of the Holy Spirit in our lives would be the fruit of the Spirit. The reason I spoke in tongues is because I was told that I was supposed to. Therefore, getting caught up in the excitement of the moment and with the help of a "friend", I did what was supposed to be the biblical thing. It wasn't about being an "opportunist" or a "man-pleaser". I was 13 years old at the time. I was impressionable, and I believed what these "spiritual" people told me. They didn't prove it from the Bible, they just told me, "this is what a good christian does". What got me thinking the most about it years later was that many of these "good christians" were divorced, drinking, lying, commiting adultery, etc. while all the time speaking in tongues and praising God. Something didn't line up. There is a reason He is called the "Holy" Spirit. If we truly have Him residing in us, we should reflect His character. I'm not saying all Baptists have it together either, but these super-spiritual charismatics that I knew were leaving much to be desired. I saw my Savior's name being dragged through the mud by these "saints". |
|
|
10/11/07 8:24 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Abigail, "Please state Scriptures that state that the Gospels and Acts are for historic purposes only and not to be used as foundational doctrine with concurrence of the epistles." I just answered that, don't you believe the answer I gave you? Now, if I remember correctly, you said you were not going to judge the salvation of those who do not speak in tongues, that is up to God. Sp what you are doing is skirting the issue just like you did with the questions about Spiritual. Let me make it simple:you have stated, "When a person receives the Holy Ghost, that is the beginning of our walk with Christ." You equated speaking in tongues (receives the Holy Ghost) with the "beginning of our walk with Christ". The beginning of a person's walk with Christ would be called salvation. Therefore, you have plainly stated that the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues is also the evidence of one's having received salvation from Christ. That, Abigail, is unscripotural, works oriented, religion. Remember, you were the one who posted it. Are you willing to say that this is actually what you meant? I am not reading anything into your quote, I have taken it for what you said. Would you care to admit it or would you be willing to further clarify what it is |
|
|
10/11/07 7:41 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Fellow Saint, I learned from experience that you can't interpret historical books independent of the epistles. I used to be just like Abigail when it came to tongues. I was saved in 1976 and most of my church-going consisted of charismatic churches. I spoke in tongues and would always use the book of Acts as my justification. About 15-18 years ago, I began to question much of what I was seeing, and hearing, in those churches; not only tongues, but "prophecy", and some of the other revalatory gifts. People were coming up with some far out suff and saying, "thus saith the Lord" to give it credibility. I started to search the scriptures and found that the way these gifts were being used was unscriptural. As I continued to study, I found that the "sign" gifts, as well as tongues, diminished over time. This is even true of the Apostle Paul's ministry. I honestly believe, and thank God for showing me, that those gifts had an important purpose in the founding and establishing of the church, but that today we have the completed work of Christ AND the completed canon of scripture. Can God heal or use tongues if He so desires? Absolutely! And I don't think anyone here would deny that, but in charismatic circles, the Bible often takes a back seat to the gifts. Very sad |
|
|
10/11/07 5:28 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Wayne M., I agree with you whole-heartedly that the gospels and Acts are just as important as the rest of the Bible. Unfortunately, those like Abigail and Spiritual, who try to create certain doctrines from EVENTS as opposed to the clear teachings of the instructional parts of scripture, make it necessary to bring up this methodology. Thanks, Wayne I always appreciate your comments and insight. Abigail, you quoted Romans 8:26, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Why, you tongues folks use this verse is beyond me. Notice it says, "groanings which CANNOT BE UTTERED". You can't use this verse to justify tongues. Also, Eph. 6:18 is not refering to tongues. It parallels Rom. 8:1. Walking in the Spirit means becoming more like Christ as the fruit of the Spirit is produced in us. Praying in the Spirit means praying according to the will of God and being submissive to whatever He desires. It is Spirit led because we cannot do it on our own. I Cor. 14:39 is in the context of the church, not a personal prayer language. |
|
|
10/11/07 4:56 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Abigail, "When a person receives the Holy Ghost, that is the beginning of our walk with Christ." By that, I assume you mean receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. If that is what you mean, then does that also mean that a person who does not speak in tongues (ie-no Holy Ghost) cannot walk the christian walk? Would you be willing to admit that you believe, because of what I just quoted from you, that anyone who does not speak in tongues is not saved? Or is it just that we who don't speak in tongues are, and will always be, carnal christians who walk after the flesh? You see, Abigail, what you DON"T SAY reveals a lot about what you believe! Fellow Saint, yes, actually, what you said aboutr the gospels, and Acts, is what I tried to explain to Abigail. The doctrine we find in the historical books will also be found in the epistles. However, the epistles are given for teaching and must determine HOW we interpret the events that we see in the historical books. Ex: There are those who say Jesus was not God because He called His Father, God in John 20. But we know that the epistles very clearly teach that Jesus is God, along WITH the gospels and Acts. I hope I'm making sense (I just got home from a long day at work). |
|
|
10/10/07 10:13 PM |
Cbcpreacher | | NY | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Abigail, I never said that the gospels nor Acts could not be used for doctrinal purposes. I stated that they were historical books, yes; but I will also make it clear that they are not to be used as the foundational books for a doctrine. Why? Because they are historical. We build our doctrine from the epistles because they are for the purpose of teaching. The events of the historical books can be used to support those truths, but should not be used as the basis for a doctrine. Other than the gospels and Acts, how would you build a doctrine for the personal use of tongues from the epipstles? In regard to Spiritual, you're right, I disagree with him COMPLETELY, (and he's not as perfect as you, or he, thinks ). I want to know if you agree with him in the areas I questioned, because if you do, then you are supporting the same heresy that he teaches. Do you really want to do that? The tongues issue is mild compared to where Spiritual has gone with his twisting of scripture. That is why I want to know. I could see you as a sisiter in Christ, in spite of the tongues doctrine. The filth that Spiritual was spewing is straight from the pit of Hell, and I cannot believe, scripyurally, that he knows Christ. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|