Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[Twangbanger]

If we Christians are to model Christ, and we describe him as loving, humble, forgiving, then why do we come off as some of the biggest self-righteous, mean spirited, condemning people sometimes?

One possible factor is engaging in discussions with people, especially on religious topics, as if it's your job to "straighten them out."

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I've never met any type of Baptist that believed Acts Chapter 10.

Say what now?

 

[ancjr]

Say what now?

Sure. I've heard them claim lineage to John the Baptist. A worthy example according to Matthew 11:11. However, John himself explains in Mattew 3:11 who the baptizer of all believers is and what the baptism is and that it is not of or by him. Also, Ephesians 4:5.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Sure. I've heard them claim lineage to John the Baptist. A worthy example according to Matthew 11:11. However, John himself explains in Mattew 3:11 who the baptizer of all believers is and what the baptism is and that it is not of or by him. Also, Ephesians 4:5.

I’ve been in a Baptist church my entire life. I’ve never heard anyone claim lineage to John the Baptist. “Lineage” back to Christ yes, but never John.

 

[JettaKnight]

Still not following.

Lineage? What are we, the pope?

 

[ancjr]

I’ve been in a Baptist church my entire life. I’ve never heard anyone claim lineage to John the Baptist. “Lineage” back to Christ yes, but never John.

Some believe in the baptism of John, others in the Baptism of Acts 10:46. That would be the evidence of lineage, according to scripture. Acts 19:3

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Some believe in the baptism of John, others in the Baptism of Acts 10:46. That would be the evidence of lineage, according to scripture. Acts 19:3

Are you distinguishing between the gift of tongues and baptism?

 

[JettaKnight]

Some believe in the baptism of John, others in the Baptism of Acts 10:46. That would be the evidence of lineage, according to scripture. Acts 19:3

I believe that John baptized, and so did Peter, and Paul, and a whole lot of others, including including the pastor at my school who baptized me.
There's no lineage, there's no superiority of one over another. There's nothing magical about the river, pond, or dunk tank water. There's no powers imbued with baptism. There's nothing special about the baptizer, and there was only one special baptizee.


EDIT: Are you perhaps talking about baptism by the Holy Spirit? Because I'd say that in not connected with baptism by water.

 

[JettaKnight]

Are you distinguishing between the gift of tongues and baptism?

Ah. I had to re-read that passage.

Yeah, that's a whole different thing than baptism.
Acts 10:47-48: baptism. Acts 10:46: speaking other languages.

And for the most part, you're not going to hear speaking in tongues (aka babbling jiberish while trying to impress others with your holiness) in a Baptist church; even the non-cessationist don't dare go that far.

 

[ancjr]

I'll leave you to your discussion.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'll leave you to your discussion.

Wait, what?

You made this claim, "I've never met any type of Baptist that believed Acts Chapter 10." And CP and I are trying to figure out what you meant.
I still don't understand that or the lineage comment; we're both Baptist, so we're confused as to what you're trying to say.

 

[ancjr]

If you insult the scripture of Acts 10:46, which you claim to believe in, I have nothing to add.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

If you insult the scripture of Acts 10:46, which you claim to believe in, I have nothing to add.

Who’s insulting what? I am very confused. It happened exactly as the scripture says it did.

I’d be more than happy to discuss the use of tongues nowadays but there’s no doubt in any Baptist church that Acts 10:46 happened.

 

[JettaKnight]

If you insult the scripture of Acts 10:46, which you claim to believe in, I have nothing to add.

My apologies if I offended you with my "jibberish" comment.
EDIT: Perhaps you'd be willing to share with me such that I would not be so closed minded.

Who’s insulting what? I am very confused. It happened exactly as the scripture says it did.

The question is how where those "tongues" manifested. And is it the same in Acts 10 as in 1 Corinthians 14? Or is Acts 10 simply a lot of people with a different languages?
(And is the current use in line with 1 Cor 14?)

I’d be more than happy to discuss the use of tongues nowadays but there’s no doubt in any Baptist church that Acts 10:46 happened.

I think he's hinting that because Baptists don't speak in tongues, then we don't fully accept it.
Acts is a historical narrative and as such you need to be really careful about how you derive theology from it.
Just because something happened in Acts, and someone did something, doesn't mean we should emulated it. (Ananias and Sapphira, anyone?)

 

[2A_Tom]

Well, this may be banworthy, but, bomb throwers run and hide after their attack.

 

[HoughMade]

Can someone point to me to a Scripture that identifies someone speaking in tongues in which it was not a known human language? Just curious.

 

[JettaKnight]

Well, this may be banworthy, but, bomb throwers run and hide after their attack.

I'll fully admit to taking a skeptical eye toward the modern implementation of speaking in tongues in the church. I've never talked to anyone that defends its use, so it's be nice to have a two sided discussion here.

 

[JettaKnight]

Can someone point to me to a Scripture that identifies someone speaking in tongues in which it was not a known human language? Just curious.

AFAIK, even in church history world wide it really doesn't occur until the Quakers.

 

[2A_Tom]

I'll fully admit to taking a skeptical eye toward the modern implementation of speaking in tongues in the church. I've never talked to anyone that defends its use, so it's be nice to have a two sided discussion here.

Kind of my point, conversations are good.

Drive by's are not.

 

[HoughMade]

Didn't know where else to put this, but I thought it was worthy of consideration: