[BenThackray]

(Original post by Spacecam)



Absolutely correct. Omnipotent means all present, in all forms, in all places, at all times. How does this contradict my point?

Thats omnipresent.

Omnipotent means all powerful.

[RC8]

(Original post by Spacecam)
Answer my question RC8. If you are such a majorly successful Lawyer, what ARE you doing on here?

hahahahaha, I'm not! You are dumber than I thought, read my post where I explained I had made up everything I had written in the last couple of posts in order to justify the lie that God had talked to me.

I'm not even going to respond to you, look at this:

I said:

"I do not believe in him, I believe people have the need for something else to exist, so whenever I'm having difficult times during, for example, a hike, I pray to the devil, buddha, and some Egyptian and invented gods in order to recreate the effect real prayers have on you. Funnily enough I was on a hike some days ago and a very religious friend of mine was praying to god to help her. Right after she finished her prayer she fell down a small cliff and we had to help her out. She wasn't heavily injured, but she needed some treatment afterwards."

Your conclusion:

"You believe in the devil"

hahaha, you crack me up man. Keep using drugs mate, you make me laugh.

OH! And your little explanation about buddhism says a lot about your reading comprehension skills. I obviously pray to buddha in order to talk to a 'sacred' being, not because I believe he is a god.

[NathanL]

Endlessly Cool

thanks very much i like to think so. coming to some interesting conclusions at the moment, i'm about to write the last 3000 words so it's all coming to a head like a fine movie, maybe lord of the rings? wait, no, that had about 15,000 endings lol

[Spacecam]

Look. Keep to the point of the post, "lawyer". I'm not wasting any more time on this. You aren't "Asking a Christian" you are mocking religions and poking fun at beliefs. Develop some tolerance, make your own thread about mocking Christianity and God if you will.

I do not need to justify my beliefs, nor the beliefs of fellow Christians to someone as ignorant as you.

+Pax et Bonum

[yawn]

(Original post by RC8)
You are a legend.

Over-application of this word has led to a triteness bwo it's absurd accolade for undeserving and unmeritous actions/words etc.

[RC8]

All right, all right. Question for christians:

If you were all sinners as you probably are, and ended up going to hell, don't you think we should ally and kill god in order to get our freedom? Or would you accept a punishment that would last for eternity just because you used a condom?

[NathanL]

Finally finished my dissertation!

(Original post by NJA)
Jesus dying on the cross for all doesn't save all .. . it enabled the God to indwell people by His Spirit, only then are they saved.

Woh woh woh, what?! What model of the atonement are you citing? How about Mark 10:45, that it was Christ's life being taken that acted as the ransom? How about John 3:16 + 18, belief through Christ is the saving principle, not the receiving of the spirit? The spirit doesn't mark salvation, it confirms it - tongues doesn't mark salvation, nor confirm it, it is a subsiduary of that (and like it or lump it, that's the closest you're gonna get ).

All reputable models of the atonement, be they satisfaction, substitution, or Christus Victor, all have as their locus the Cross and subsequent Resurrection - nothing about tongues.

God's spirit sanctifies the person, it is not the reason for their justification - what justifies them is the cross of Christ.

And with regards to the Titus verse, notice the framework within which this spirit regenerates us? Constant references to Christ as Saviour [1:4; 2:13; 3:6 etc] - which only begs the question, if the Spirit regenerates us through Jesus Christ, and if Jesus Christ is the source of salvation, then how did this occur? Hmmm - cross, maybe?

Without that you havn't received God's grace and are not justified before him.

Hate to break it to you but Acts 2:33-39, says nothing about grace! It's certainly about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but it has got nothing to do with justification. If you want to see justification, look to Romans in particular and note that Jesus Christ is the source of grace [Rom 1:4-5; 1:16; 3:21-23 and so on, and so on - note especially, that the latter passage talks about righteousness (read - justification/salvation) is received by faith, confirmed by the gospel of Christ (that is, His death and Resurrection), not by some obscure tongues spoken at conversion].

"most of the time, the Holy Spirit does not manifest in salvation. Within reformed tradition . . ."
Completely wrong, what do you care about the scripture record ?
Nothing ! You just disregard it to believe your tradition of men.

I'm assuming, from this rather blase reaction, that you do not find yourself within the reformed tradition, huh? In this the Spirit of God is causing a heart of faith in you, a totally depraved sinner who cannot turn to God by his own means. In this sense, what I meant by the above statement is that the Holy Spirit does not manifest itself in terms of tongues, it is already there, working behind the surface causing and authoring our hearts to turn to God. If you need scriptural attestation for this, I can give it to you - but I would worry for your theology if you needed it... moreso...

You said yourself, above "I would not deny that one requires the Holy Spirit to be saved", the point you are missing is that it was known precisely when people received the Holy Spirit (salvation)

The difference is NJA is that you are putting the Holy Spirit as justifier, and I'm putting Him as sanctifier - you 'need' the Spirit in the sense of the Spirit turns you to the Father's glory and makes you repent, but the Spirit does not justify you, the Father does.

The context is "every word" including words of salvation, so your comment is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, exegesis just doesn't work like that. The context is talking about church politics, and that's all it's referring to. It is not referring to a pentecostal theology.

so says you.
Personally I don't believe in a God that sets a pattern different from the norm, indeed there is no "abnormal" salvation, it is a "common" salvation (Jude 3), same for all.

No, so says the Bible, and there's a difference - the difference is proven in the fact that you cannot cite me one verse in scripture that says explicitly that you need to speak in tongues to be saved. Can you, or can you not? If you can't, it's a pattern, if you can, it's a norm. Wake up and smell the exegetical coffee.

Oh look again - no mention of receiving salvation or receiving the Spirit !
So according to your way of reading the bible we can say that people are saved without this !!

Absolutely! Look at Peter's speech in Acts 2, look at Romans 3, look at 1 Corinthians 15, look at Matthew 28 - this is where you're going so woefully, woefully wrong. The assurance of salvation wasn't the experience of the Spirit, it was the fact of the risen Jesus - you can't cite me one passage which talks about the spirit as the pre-requisite or defining factor in salvation, but I can cite you scores of verses, those included, wherein the Resurrection gives meaning and assurance to salvation. Particularly look at the latter half of 1 Cor 15 - it is because Christ was raised, that we will be raised. The assurance of salvation was not an experience of the Spirit, that was confirmation, nothing more. The assurance of salvation and vindication was the vindication given through Christ's prototype Resurrection. That's where you've been going wrong. That is why salvation is not defined by tongues - because all who believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour (titles that only apply to the resurrected Jesus) and have faith have righteousness (cf. Rom 3).

By the way, I also find this handling of Acts 8 very very weak. Because your bias is that you need the Spirit, you deny to handle what this passage says. The man went on rejoicing and was baptised - is this supposed to not be an indication that he had joined the ranks of Christians? Usually scripture tells us what happens when hearts are different ('they doubted in their hearts' is a common Gospel phrase). It does not do so here. The being led by the spirit, the baptism and finally the man's rejoicing all shout clearly and loudly that this man was saved, and all you have in retort is a poorly supported bias.

Originally Posted by NathanL

That's a fallacious example - the difference is, all of these scholars have dedidcated their lives to study, and very often, the love of God and the example of Christ within academia. It is stupidty of the highest order to dismiss them on the crude parallel between them 'teaching' and the pharisees 'teaching'. It just doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

So says you.

Yes, so says me (wonderful retort, btw)- and unless you've been told by the Almighty Himself, or unless you have a BTH hiding in that CV of yours, with no ego attached I consider myself the most qualified out of the two of us to make this judgement, don't you think?

The Spirit was not given until Jesus was glorified (John 7v39, 16v7 etc) so what was heard of the Spirit with all that received Him ??
Please tell us ?

Nice dodge - my comment was that [a] the passage is possibly referring to the parousia (e.g. end of days, that's how people 'know' who Christ is, because He is judging them [!]), and [b] even if it IS referring to pentecost, there's still no mention of tongues, which you have still failed to accept.

They would know the day that Christ was in them, not just with them (v17), how did they know ?
How did the gentiles know ?

As the consensus of scripture testifies to - the Resurrection, His status as Lord confirmed by, but not defined by, the Spirit.

People in the New Tetstament knew that sincere believers hadn't received the Spirit (see Acts 8v12-16) and they knew precisely when they had (by God's sign of tongues). Sure, you or someone could "fake" tongues, and you might even fool someone, but that doesn't change the fact that believers speak in tongues when they receive God's Spirit and it edifies them.

Again, you've dodged my point. Just because you can speak in tongues it doesn't mean that you know anything, they could be faked or you could be just deluded. In this sense, compared to the non-tongues-speaking christian, you are no better off epistemologically, strictly speaking at least.

You havn't answered any of the points made in the article, please do.

Did you write it? Have you covered the points raised in the links I cited? No? Well, there we go. I'm sorry, just because you throw one link at me (to which I threw back several more, plus a consensus ) does not mean I should answer it. All the points are answered within the references I gave.

All the signs listed in Mark 16v15-20 have already been encountered (see Luke 10v9, 19 etc), except tongues.

Again, a dodge - the passage does not talk of tongues as defining salvation.

Water baptism doesn't take away sin, but it is "the answerr of a good conscience toward God".

And finally, yet another dodge! I asked do you think baptism is a prerequisite for salvation? If not, then you are picking and choosing within the disputed Mark 16:9-20.

--------------------

And in conclusion, I am still to see a passage that says tongues define salvation, your comments about knowing you're saved are better answered and supported scripturally by the reality of the resurrection, and other than that the best you have is a pattern in Acts which as we see in ch 8 but you just brush over, is not even unanimous!

but thank you for replying

Nathan

[Melancholy]

(Original post by RC8)
hahahahaha, I'm not! You are dumber than I thought, read my post where I explained I had made up everything I had written in the last couple of posts in order to justify the lie that God had talked to me.

So you're a liar.

I'm not even going to respond to you, look at this:

It's not the first time you've said that is it?

look at this:

I said:

"I do not believe in him, I believe people have the need for something else to exist, so whenever I'm having difficult times during, for example, a hike, I pray to the devil, buddha, and some Egyptian and invented gods in order to recreate the effect real prayers have on you. Funnily enough I was on a hike some days ago and a very religious friend of mine was praying to god to help her. Right after she finished her prayer she fell down a small cliff and we had to help her out. She wasn't heavily injured, but she needed some treatment afterwards."

Your conclusion:

"You believe in the devil"

hahaha, you crack me up man. Keep using drugs mate, you make me laugh.

OH! And your little explanation about buddhism says a lot about your reading comprehension skills. I obviously pray to buddha in order to talk to a 'sacred' being, not because I believe he is a god.

Yet you continue to answer the poster who you declared you would not respond to.

You are, in your own words, 'dumber than I thought'.

[jpowell]

Deuteronomy 13:7 clearly instructs Christians to stone to death those who try to convert them to other faiths.

How do modern day Christians justify their lack of stonings?

[NathanL]

The basic backbone of any decent exegesis, Powell:

1) Who is the speaker in Deuteronomy? Moses.

2) Who is he speaking to? Ancient Israel.

3) What is the theology he speaks of? Covenant and contract.

4) Who is the contracted in Deuteronomic theology? From [2], we know it to be ancient Israel.

From this we can some wider questions,

5) Is the theology of Christianity Deuteronomic? No, it is based on a new covenant of God revealed in Christ.

6) Who are Christians? Not ancient Israel.

From these six questions we can see that Deuteronomy 13:7 does not instruct Christians to do anything - asking such questions is all important to exegeting a passage correctly.

Note a careful distinction - in saying that Deuteronomy does not command Christians to do anything, am I saying that it's worthless? No, it has much worth for one coming from an Abrahamic perspective - but instead, it is not 'contractually' or 'covenantally' binding on the Christian.

So the Christians on this board are well within their exegetical and theological rights to answer your question with a "we don't, the command was not for us, end of" and although you may dislike their frankness, they would not be being inconsistent theologically or morally.

Nathan

[bronsonbear]

(Original post by RC8)
All right, all right. Question for christians:

If you were all sinners as you probably are, and ended up going to hell, don't you think we should ally and kill god in order to get our freedom? Or would you accept a punishment that would last for eternity just because you used a condom?

I think you might have missed the basic christian messsage: we are all sinners, but by christ recieve forgiveness for all the muck that we do.

sidenote: i don't think all christians beleive condoms are evil....

[jpowell]

(Original post by NathanL)
Note a careful distinction - in saying that Deuteronomy does not command Christians to do anything, am I saying that it's worthless? No, it has much worth for one coming from an Abrahamic perspective - but instead, it is not 'contractually' or 'covenantally' binding on the Christian.

So the Christians on this board are well within their exegetical and theological rights to answer your question with a "we don't, the command was not for us, end of" and although you may dislike their frankness, they would not be being inconsistent theologically or morally.

Nathan

Okay, that sounds fairly well reasoned. Where in the Bible does it say that the old laws are no longer valid though?

[*Stargirl*]

Paul

[bronsonbear]

(Original post by *Stargirl*)
Paul

Where? Just so I can make a note

[*Stargirl*]

oh dear this may take some time lol...until I find it its a pssage where he says something like and am I under the law....no....

[bronsonbear]

(Original post by *Stargirl*)
oh dear this may take some time lol...until I find it its a pssage where he says something like and am I under the law....no....

oh yeah i rememebr it... can't rememebr where though lol!

[NJA]

(Original post by NathanL)
Woh woh woh, what?! What model of the atonement are you citing? How about Mark 10:45, that it was Christ's life being taken that acted as the ransom? How about John 3:16 + 18, belief through Christ is the saving principle, not the receiving of the spirit? The spirit doesn't mark salvation, it confirms it - tongues doesn't mark salvation, nor confirm it, it is a subsiduary of that (and like it or lump it, that's the closest you're gonna get ).

Under the OT, the sacrifice atoned for sin . ..but the people were still "in the flesh" so they would not be able to stop sinning.

You have to receive the Life of Christ, that gives power over sin, salvation (deliverance) from sin.

Until you receive the Spirit you are still "in the flesh", "unregenerate", not "saved" in the New Testament sense.

In the NT it is known precisely when people receive God's invisible Spirit ! - how ?
God says our hearts are deceitful above all things (Jer.17v9) therefore God must bare independant witness - this he did and does with his sign of speaking in tongues - the new tongue signifies the new heart.

(Original post by NathanL)
All reputable models of the atonement, be they satisfaction, substitution, or Christus Victor, all have as their locus the Cross and subsequent Resurrection - nothing about tongues.

God's spirit sanctifies the person, it is not the reason for their justification - what justifies them is the cross of Christ.

1Co11: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

If you havn't received the Spirit you are not washed, sanctified or justified before God.

"If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." (John 13v8)

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost Which he shed on us abundantly" (Titus 3v5-6)

(Original post by NathanL)
And with regards to the Titus verse, notice the framework within which this spirit regenerates us? Constant references to Christ as Saviour [1:4; 2:13; 3:6 etc] - which only begs the question, if the Spirit regenerates us through Jesus Christ, and if Jesus Christ is the source of salvation, then how did this occur? Hmmm - cross, maybe?

The cross was to enable The Spirit to be given:-

Gal. 3 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

If you get the receiving of the Spirit wrong (and you certainly do), then you make what Jesus did on the cross of no effect.

You accept the detail of the crucifiction, once for all, the same Lord also expects you to accept the same detail he has given on the receiving of His Spirit.

(Original post by NathanL)
Hate to break it to you but Acts 2:33-39, says nothing about grace! It's certainly about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but it has got nothing to do with justification. If you want to see justification, look to Romans in particular and note that Jesus Christ is the source of grace [Rom 1:4-5; 1:16; 3:21-23 and so on, and so on - note especially, that the latter passage talks about righteousness (read - justification/salvation) is received by faith, confirmed by the gospel of Christ (that is, His death and Resurrection), not by some obscure tongues spoken at conversion].

How little you understand grace!
Zec10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications:

Grace isn't just not being under law - that's lawlessness.
Grace is what Jesus was "full of" (John 1:14-16) it is the nature of God - we only have that grace once we have received the Spirit of God - the one Spirit of grace and of supplications (prayers) - sure enough the prophecy identifies speaking in tongues (prayer in the Spirit) when people receive Him.

(Original post by NathanL)
I'm assuming, from this rather blase reaction, that you do not find yourself within the reformed tradition, huh? In this the Spirit of God is causing a heart of faith in you, a totally depraved sinner who cannot turn to God by his own means. In this sense, what I meant by the above statement is that the Holy Spirit does not manifest itself in terms of tongues, it is already there, working behind the surface causing and authoring our hearts to turn to God. If you need scriptural attestation for this, I can give it to you - but I would worry for your theology if you needed it... moreso...

It's you that is blase by saying:-
"most of the time, the Holy Spirit does not manifest in salvation. Within reformed tradition . . ."

I ask again, where's your scriptural attestation for this ?

(Original post by NathanL)
The difference is NJA is that you are putting the Holy Spirit as justifier, and I'm putting Him as sanctifier - you 'need' the Spirit in the sense of the Spirit turns you to the Father's glory and makes you repent, but the Spirit does not justify you, the Father does.

Is a person saved when they are not sanctified ?

(Original post by NathanL)
I'm sorry, exegesis just doesn't work like that. The context is talking about church politics, and that's all it's referring to. It is not referring to a pentecostal theology.

So say you. Perhaps you would like to give just one scripture that shows that you have received salvation ?

(Original post by NathanL)
No, so says the Bible, and there's a difference - the difference is proven in the fact that you cannot cite me one verse in scripture that says explicitly that you need to speak in tongues to be saved. Can you, or can you not? If you can't, it's a pattern, if you can, it's a norm. Wake up and smell the exegetical coffee.

You don't understand exegesis - The Jews were expected to believe Jesus Christ was the Messiah - otherwise they were all innocent . . . but there is no verse in their scriptures that says "Jesus Christ is the Messiah" - but that's what they teach.

You are saying "except I see it spelled out this way in one verse I won't believe" - bye-bye unbeliever !!

Do you refuse to believe anything for example "the trinity" or "infant baptism", because people "cannot cite me one verse in scripture that says explicitly" .. . ?

(Original post by NathanL)

Absolutely! Look at Peter's speech in Acts 2, look at Romans 3, look at 1 Corinthians 15, look at Matthew 28 - this is where you're going so woefully, woefully wrong. The assurance of salvation wasn't the experience of the Spirit, it was the fact of the risen Jesus - you can't cite me one passage which talks about the spirit as the pre-requisite or defining factor in salvation, but I can cite you scores of verses, those included, wherein the Resurrection gives meaning and assurance to salvation. Particularly look at the latter half of 1 Cor 15 - it is because Christ was raised, that we will be raised. The assurance of salvation was not an experience of the Spirit, that was confirmation, nothing more. The assurance of salvation and vindication was the vindication given through Christ's prototype Resurrection. That's where you've been going wrong. That is why salvation is not defined by tongues - because all who believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour (titles that only apply to the resurrected Jesus) and have faith have righteousness (cf. Rom 3).

The Corinthians, Romans etc truly believed therefore they all had received the Spirit with signs following, as already detailed in Acts.
You are reading letters to people that are different from you and *assuming* you believe like they do - wake up, you don't !

(Original post by NathanL)

By the way, I also find this handling of Acts 8 very very weak. Because your bias is that you need the Spirit, you deny to handle what this passage says. The man went on rejoicing and was baptised - is this supposed to not be an indication that he had joined the ranks of Christians?

There is every reason to believe that he was Christian (anointed by the Spirit), even though this detail isn't again mentioned.

(Original post by NathanL)
Nice dodge - my comment was that [a] the passage is possibly referring to the parousia (e.g. end of days, that's how people 'know' who Christ is, because He is judging them [!]), and [b] even if it IS referring to pentecost, there's still no mention of tongues, which you have still failed to accept.

I dodged nothing, your exegesis that this description of being "born again" is in fact referring to the end of days judgement is utter nonsense - which church are you with? - I'll e-mail them asking if that's what they believe !!

(Original post by NathanL)
As the consensus of scripture testifies to - the Resurrection, His status as Lord confirmed by, but not defined by, the Spirit.

Jesus resurrection did not prove that the Spirit was in them or anyone !
When Jesus was resurrected he met the disciples on earth and said
"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father" (John 20v17

He had already explained in John 14, 15 & 16 (& John 7v39) that the Spirit would not be given until after he had returned to the Father.

This began at Pentecost:-
Ac33: Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

(Original post by NathanL)
Again, you've dodged my point. Just because you can speak in tongues it doesn't mean that you know anything, they could be faked or you could be just deluded. In this sense, compared to the non-tongues-speaking christian, you are no better off epistemologically, strictly speaking at least.

Again I havn't, Jesus says you "know the day" the Spirit enters you, and the disciples and those they were sent to and people today all know - just because you, a natural man doesn't receive these spiritual things and requires some sort of "empirical proof" doesn't mean it's not real, true and life-giving.

(Original post by NathanL)
Again, a dodge - the passage does not talk of tongues as defining salvation.

I was answering your original challenge:-
"Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus talk about speaking in tongues . . ."
Yes Mark 16 only tells us signs that follow believers as they go out preaching the gospel after Jesus resurrection, why do you think tongues appears here when it wasn't mentioned before ?

(Original post by NathanL)
And finally, yet another dodge! I asked do you think baptism is a prerequisite for salvation? If not, then you are picking and choosing within the disputed Mark 16:9-20.

Anyone who has received the Spirit has received salvation, but that is "unto obedience" so anyone who refuses water baptism is no longer believing in God and so won't be saved, unless they repent. That's the only way I can answer that question.
Do you believe that people who refuse water baptism will be saved ?

[yawn]

(Original post by NJA)
I was answering your original challenge:-
"Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus talk about speaking in tongues . . ."

(Original post by NathanL)
Originally Posted by NathanL
I would not deny that one requires the Holy Spirit to be saved. The ambiguity comes when discussing how one experiences, receives it etc - most of the time, the Holy Spirit does not manifest in salvation. Within reformed tradition, He is the active participant leading us to a repentant heart. After salvation, He is the sanctifying participant, giving us gifts and healing through which we become like Christ. Nowhere in that theology, however, is there a command that at salvation, we must speak in tongues.

NJA,

I put your comment that you claim is a statement from Nathan into the search facility, as I wanted to see in what context the quoted statement had been said.

The only relevant comment closest to your typed quote is this one above. Kinda puts a different perspective on it doesn't it, without the 'original challenge' that was supposedly being presented to you? Maybe you can find it yourself?

[*Stargirl*]

can we christians please stop discussing tongues!
The people who believe we need tongues won't believe we don't.
the people who believe we don't need tongues won't believe we do.
So can that be the end of it now.

[yawn]

People still want to discuss it, regardless of your desire that they don't.

Such is the nature of D&D and the freedoms that are given to us bwo the forum.

You could avoid the debate yourself of course by not commenting on it...it will run its course naturally and eventually people will move on to something else...until that time however...