|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 29, 2009 15:06:11 GMT -5
sir, The Church was on earth for 300 years before there was a New Testament. The church was established on the day of Pentecost. The Catholic Church gave us the Cannonization of Scripture. 2 Peter 1:21 Where did you get your Bible anyway? It fell out of the sky complete with leather cover right after the Asension? God inspired the Apostles. Come on there big man - The Church gave you your Bible. God gave us the Bible 2 Tim 3:16,17 At least be appreciative huh? You still haven't shown me where your church is in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 29, 2009 14:58:50 GMT -5
If she is Christ's Mother - Isn't she yours also No.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 29, 2009 14:56:20 GMT -5
I would hope that you were banned for slander rather than voicing your own opinion. I was banned because I preach the truth and for no other reason Search my posts and see what you find. I did and you personally attacked Jesse (verbally). You're still in a non-essential church.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 29, 2009 14:54:10 GMT -5
The Church gave us the Bible, not the other way around. The Scripture contains the Word of God - but it is not all that Christ has given us. We also have the Church, which is the pillar of truth, as well as tradition, and the deposit of faith given to the Apostles. The scripture contains the Word of God - Which tells us not to go beyond that which is written... 1 Corinthians 4:6
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 29, 2009 14:47:50 GMT -5
I would also like to add (and speak for myself) that I reject the Catholic Church because I cannot find the Catholic Church in the Bible. Thus, the Catholic Church and the Baptist church will suffer the same destruction.
The books will be laid open on judgment day and your church won't be in it.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 29, 2009 14:45:02 GMT -5
Jesse, If you continue to reject the Catholic Church you will never know the truth that she teaches. The protestant church can lead one to Christ, but that is all that it can do. It can bring you no further. You have believed a lie Jesse. Why do you ban those who have the Truth? I would hope that you were banned for slander rather than voicing your own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 29, 2009 8:52:47 GMT -5
More coming soon: "Pelagius on Trial" "Westminster Catachism vs. Bible" "Babies are Hell Deserving Sinners" I have an audio debate between a Christian preacher and a Calvinist. Wherein the Calvinist (Gene Cook) said "The God of the Bible damns all babies to hell and if you don't believe that then you don't believe in the God of the Bible."
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 26, 2009 16:18:47 GMT -5
First, when did the disciples get saved, was it when they were baptized by John? Second, what about the thief on the cross, what happened to him? Thanks in advance, if you decide to answer. 1. The Bible doesn't say when they were baptized. Every person in the New Testament that Believed unto (toward) the remission of sins was baptized with water. Since everyone who believed and was saved was baptized, it is safe to assume that the Apostles who believed and were saved were also baptized. We know Paul was for sure (Acts 22:16). I'd also hate to place the assurance of my salvation on something that the Bible doesn't say instead of what the Bible does say. For instance: The Bible doesn't say that the Apostles were baptized, therefore, I don't have to be baptized in order to be saved. The Bible says that the Baptism which is in the name of Jesus is for the remission of sins and that same Baptism which is in the name of Jesus is with water. (Acts 2:38 10:47,48) 2 The thief on the cross lived under the Old Covenant and before the great commission where the new baptism, which is in the name of Jesus was commissioned. I wouldn't be concerned about what the thief on the cross had to do to be saved if I were you. Whose to say he wasn't baptized with the baptism of John? Not to say that the Baptism of John was sufficient (Acts 19). However, this just goes to show you how presumptuous the denominational world is when it comes to Water Baptism. Hope that helped. Those who so chose to mock me are also invited to engage in an organized civil debate. Of course, there are no takers.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 24, 2009 17:11:07 GMT -5
This might open up a can of worms, but Church of Christ folks do have some good points on the conversion accounts in the Book of Acts. I have been challenged quite a bit by the writings of a Church of Christ guy named Mark Copeland (executableoutlines.com) As far as I can tell, baptism is either mentioned or implied in just about every account of the preaching of the Gospel in Acts. In fact, it seems that in every case of conversion described in detail in the Book of Acts, baptism is mentioned. You don't see people being commanded to "pray and receive Christ" or anything like that, but you do see people being commanded to "repent and be baptized." It would seem almost that an act of faith is initially shown by a person being baptized - not by praying a prayer. More on another time..... I would agree. So how do you believe one "Calls upon the name of the Lord." Also, is it at the point of "calling upon the name of the Lord" that a man is saved?" Hope to hear from you soon. Jonathan Whitehead
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 24, 2009 17:07:32 GMT -5
Oh boy. Your liberal use of scripture gives me a headache. This is not the thread to speak of the Holy Spirit, nor is it the thread to speak of street preaching. In fact, there are specific threads for evangelism. Someone show me where in the New Testament people were full of the Holy Ghost and no one was ever converted. Are you serious? Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit and instead of converting, they stoned him. We're commanded to be filled with the Holy Spirit all the time (Ephesians 5:18) yet you don't convert every person you encounter. (I would also add that you have never converted anyone because you preach error.) If no one is ever drawn to the preaching then it is evidence the Holy Ghost is not at work. So now there has to be a mystical operation on someones heart in order for them to listen to what is being preached. You're such a Calvinist. Are you a Billy Graham fan? (Billy Graham is a false teacher BTW) It is important because we are discussing the Holy Ghost. This thread is entitled "The Sinners Prayer." If you are always ignored then it is evidence the Holy Ghost is not in operation. So if people listen to me, then the Holy Spirit is in operation through me? That's funny because there's a lot of power pastor's on television who draw massive crowds, making merchandise of men. BTW none of them teach the same thing. Since the majority of America listened to President Obama, does that mean the Holy Spirit was operating in him? You're ridiculous. But, if you're willing to question what I believe, I'm willing to defend it. I'm always willing to engage in a civil debate.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 24, 2009 8:35:30 GMT -5
My point would be that having or getting a crowd (ie..people listening) is not necessarily a sign that one is preaching correctly or preaching the truth. Sometimes the truth turns people off and they don't want to listen. Micah was asking "Does anyone ever listen to you?" I am not sure what relevance that question has because having a crowd or not having a crowd does not automatically mean that God is for you and your message or against you and your message. As I reread the posts, I can see that what I wrote might be understood to give the idea that I support what jonathan is preaching. I am sorry for implying that. And I should have made myself clearer. What I agree with is his point that "preaching and nobody listening ...may indicate that a person is preaching the truth." - not that Jonathan is necessarily preaching the truth himself. I guess I am slightly fed up with what seems to me as an overemphasis amongst street preachers in "getting a crowd." I hear that often amongst street preachers and have used that idea as well...in my own street preaching (wow, we had a huge crowd today...etc...etc.....we had a heckler, drunk guy, etc and a crowd gathered....) In fact, it almost seems that in some street preaching circles there is an idea that if you fail to get a crowd, then you must be doing something wrong.....ie....you are failure....you have a problem....etc. . But, hey that is another topic for the board. Maybe I will open it up one day when I have time. Hey DJPray, I don't think anyone had the idea that you agree with me on many things seeing as your name is "DjPray". However, this is the thread to discuss Prayer and what roll it plays in the conversion process. Maybe this can be your shot to defend the doctrine of Faith-only. Or whatever it is that you believe. Since no one else has chosen to voice their opinions.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 23, 2009 21:03:16 GMT -5
Suppose Jonathandwhitehead preached in downtown Little Rock, Arkansas and nobody listened to him, but instead walked past and ignored him. Would that automatically mean he was preaching wrong? In fact, it may indicate that I'm preaching the truth. 2 Timothy 4:3-5.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 22, 2009 17:31:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 20, 2009 16:00:01 GMT -5
That verse doesn't prove there's more than one baptism today. The Nicene Creed quotes Ephesians 4:5 "... one Lord, one faith, one baptism." I don't believe the Nicene Creed, I believe the Bible. There's one baptism for us today.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 20, 2009 15:58:55 GMT -5
Where do you preach open air Jonathan? Downtown Little Rock, Arkansas. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 20, 2009 11:45:01 GMT -5
You're being very manipulative Jonathan. I've never said on my show that I am willing, open and ready to debate anything and everything. And don't lie about me and say that I haven't studied this issue. I have studied it. When did I say that I wasn't willing to debate a Pastor with a bachelor's degree such as myself? I just debating the issue. You are the one who seemed to lack confidence. I have complete confidence in my situation. I just have more important obligations right now. I might be willing to debate this later on in the Summer when I have more time. And you need to stop lying about our interaction. I responded back and forth with you for quite some time and you never provided good responses to my objections to your position. And then, like I said, you basically exalted water baptism to the place of the Holy Spirit saying that water baptism and not the Holy Spirit is what sealed believers into the Body of Christ! I told you that was idolatry and blasphemous and didn't wish to talk to you about it anymore. Now, since you are being as pushy about this as you are, I am just going to ignore you all together. And if you continue to talk about this on our radio show webchat, you will be banned for good. I don't wish for it to come to what it has, but you seem to lack self control on this issue. You know, self control IS a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Your seeming inability to take a no on this issue and continue to be pushy makes it seem like you are cultish. Just being honest. Oh, and this is my last post on this thread... The invitation's always extended.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 20, 2009 7:36:06 GMT -5
Hear Believe Repent Confess Be Baptized I'm sure we can agree on most of those. However, if we disagree one a few, we can discuss it. Take Care, Jonathan Thanks for the civil reply, Jonathan Do you mean to be baptized in water? And do you believe baptism (in water if that's what you mean) is a requirement to be saved, or in other words, that no one can be saved unless they are baptized? Yes sir, that is correct. I believe Water Baptism is calling upon the name of the Lord which is for the remission of sins.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 20, 2009 7:32:41 GMT -5
Jonathan, this is getting kind of old. You really need to grow up a bit. Every week we have our radio show and every week you are there talking about how you believe that Baptism is not only required for salvation, but that Baptism actually regenerates a person. I asked you nicely several times (not just this week but many weeks) to stop talking about this subject on our webchat during the radio show. You have refused to do so, so I banned you for the day. You are welcome to come back next week as long as you don't talk about the same subject again. Our radio show webchat is not a place for you to come and basically harass other listeners with the same thing every week. If you want to talk to someone about this, then come on this message board and discuss it. The webchat is for discussion amongst the listeners regarding topics that we are talking about on the radio show. It is not the place for you to push your agenda. I am not interested in debating anyone on the subject of Baptism right now. Maybe in the future. Right now, I am only interested in debating someone on Perseverance of the Saints or OSAS. I think that Jesse is interested in debating someone on Original Sin, Perfection and maybe even Open Theism. And don't even try to say that my not wanting to debate has anything to do with me not having the truth or being scared, etc. Just not interested at this time. I've talked to you about it enough and don't care to discuss it with you any further. By the way, why does it have to be a Pastor who will debate one of us? What can't it just be you. You seem so sure of your position. Can't you defend it? I can defend my position and I did through our E-Mail conversation which you refuse to respond to. Why is it that you are only willing (or unwilling in this case) to debate an average person and not a preacher with a degree, such as yourself? It sounds to me that you are unsure of your proposition. You may be "unwilling" to debate Water Baptism right now but I can assure you that no preacher for the Churches of Christ (nor myself) will refuse any public debates on any subjects at anytime. Maybe you should think about that. At least you've let the community know that the invitation you extended on an earlier show was limited to debates concerning the topics you have studied.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 19, 2009 17:15:20 GMT -5
I asked Kerrigan Skelly to debate a preacher (of a good report) over the purpose of Water Baptism Then he banned from Refining Fire Radio.
I hope Kerrigan Skelly chooses to accept this invitation.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 19, 2009 15:24:45 GMT -5
Better yet, Jonathan, why don't you tell us how someone gets saved. Because you really have me confused over on the other thread that we have been discussing. So, can you explain how someone comes to salvation/saved/forgiven, (how ever you want to say it, you know what i mean) Hear Believe Repent Confess Be Baptized I'm sure we can agree on most of those. However, if we disagree one a few, we can discuss it. Take Care, Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 18, 2009 21:06:51 GMT -5
Show me where I ever mentioned any "sinners prayer"? So, how are you saying one calls upon the name of the Lord?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 18, 2009 21:04:55 GMT -5
This was ignored the first time so I will try again. What is the doctrine of baptisms (plural) that is one of the doctrines of Christ? (Hebrews 6) There's a lot of Baptisms spoken of in the Bible (at least six or seven). Perhaps this has been ignored because we don't understand what you're asking.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 18, 2009 20:59:44 GMT -5
That was not my position, i was just showing how you twisted what someone else said. Bro. ross was just showing that signs will follow them that believe and it was not just for the Apostles (and Cornelius), because there are believers today. We can agree or disagree on if this is the baptism of the Holy Ghost or not, but you were twisting his words. I never said only the Apostles had Miraculous gifts. You have made comments, but not logically nor scripturally. I think that Peter and the Apostles used "saved" "salvation" "remission of sins" and similar words to describe salvation, not "and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". They were pretty smart, they knew the difference. So, by this comment i take it that you believe we must be baptized in the name of the Lord to be saved or that they just needed to hear those words?? Not sure which one you mean. The text tells us that the words that Cornelius and his house hold were to be saved by consisted of a commandment that they ought to do. Acts 10:6,22,33 Acts 11:14 I think the words spoken by Peter before the Holy Ghost fell on them was enough info for them to be saved: Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42 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. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. You forgot verse 37. "These things ye knowAnd notice what happened after: Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Yes, as Peter began to speak the Gospel, which they knew, the Holy Spirit fell on them. If belief was all that was required of these men, Peter would not have needed to come. Cornelius definitely believed the Gospel and prayed to the God of the Bible regularly. What does Joppa have to do with anything? Peter was just saying that the Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles (something that evidently had never happened) just as it did on them at Pentecost. If Holy Spirit Baptism was experienced by every Christian he wouldn't have had to go back 6-7 years in order to recall a similar instance. (He didn't even go back a couple years to recall Acts 8.) The Holy Ghost did "fall" on the Samaritans in Acts 8: Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost This is referring to the impartation of Miraculous Gifts which were received through the laying on of the Apostles hands, not the Baptism of the Holy Ghost which was given by Jesus (not the Apostles).
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 17, 2009 18:01:47 GMT -5
False teaching always begins with a false presupposition and twisting someones words. And that's exactly what i've seen you do on this thread. for instance: If this not a twisting of scripture and what someone has said, then i don't know what is!! That's why i said that, maybe to get your attention! You've said, the baptism of the Holy Ghost is not a gift, and i've already stated one passage, but here's another: Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Act 10:45 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. Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Now, you said earlier that Cornelius and his house got the baptism before they were saved and then you just said that the gift of the Holy Ghost was salvation, so, please break down these verses for us. I've tried to get you to answer my last few questions, so that i can understand what you are saying, but to no avail!! We're, at least, using scripture and our understanding of it, but i don't know what you are using. My rebuttal to your position concerning Mark 16:17 was logic. Acts 10 - There are many gifts of the Holy Spirit and the context supplies the substance. The gift being spoken of in Acts 2 is salvation, as I have already logically shown. (Page 3, Post #86) The gift in Acts 10 refers to the miraculous gift of speaking in other languages. Acts 10 does not refer to salvation because Cornelius could not be saved before he heard the words by which him and his household would be saved (... and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord - Water Baptism). Acts 11:15 says "... The Holy Spirit fell on them as on us at the beginning." Holy Spirit baptism is not for every Christian. Had it been for every Christian the Apostle Peter would have said "As on the men in Joppa." According to this statement Peter had to think back 6-7 years in order to recall a similar instance. Jonathan, So, the promise was only to the apostles? And the house hold of Cornelius. and it is when Jesus gave miraculous gifts to them? Yes, it was when Jesus gave them miraculous gifts but the miraculous gifts were not the Holy Spirit Baptism. From what i understand you saying then, is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the gifting of miraculous gifts by Jesus to the apostles. Is that an accurate definition of your view? Close. Holy Spirit Baptism was the fulfillment of prophecy, confirmation of the word, and remembrance of the words spoken of by Jesus. Which was accompanied by the miraculous gift of tongues. Both instances of Holy Spirit Baptism were accompanied by Gifts but Miraculous gifts do not necessitate Holy Spirit Baptism. Right here my friend: Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If this is not the baptism, then what is it? The gift is the gift of salvation. Can you receive without being filled? "Filled" or "Pimplemi" is a word that must be interpreted by the context. You can be saved and not have Miraculous Gifts and you can have Miraculous Gifts and not be saved (Cornelius). (Miraculous Gifts: Not required.) You also must be filled with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18) by letting the word of Christ dwell in you richly (Colossains 3:16,17). (Obeying God: Required) Isn't Acts 1:4-9 the promise of Acts 2:4. Yes. And isn't Acts 2:38 speaking of that same promise? No. Had these men been asking how to receive miraculous powers the Apostle Peter would have said "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God."
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 17, 2009 6:28:17 GMT -5
Jonathan said: What? are you saying we have to speak in tongues to be saved?? Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent! False teaching always begins with a false presupposition and twisting someones words.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 16, 2009 18:20:49 GMT -5
Whitehead you are confused! In one post you wrote The apostles were baptized in Acts 2 like Jesus promised, "The Bible tells us that the Apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 just as Jesus promised in Acts 1:4,5" Then in another you state this concerning Acts 2: "Why would you conclude that this is Holy Spirit baptism?" Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5: And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 33: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. 38:Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39: For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Peter's sermon is dealing with the Holy Ghost baptism, what else would he be referring to? I'm not sure whether or not you actually read my posts. Either you skimmed my posts or your attempting to slander my name and rob my statements of their context. In which case, these are all characteristics of a false teacher.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 16, 2009 18:14:53 GMT -5
Whenever a passage is presented as a rebuttal you switch the point and make a different argument, deal with the points at hand, I refuted all the passages you listed, look above. I shown you there were more than 2 occasions of the baptism in the Bible. No you didn't. Also, do you believe The Apostle Paul was baptized in the spirit? Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible's silent. In acts 2:38,39 Peter is clearly talking about the Holy Ghost, does Joel 2 come to mind, The men in Acts 2:37 were asking what they should do to escape the wrath of God. It would be ridiculous for the Apostle Peter to tell them how to get miraculous spiritual gifts when they asked how to escape the wrath of God. Example: Guy: How do I start your car? Me: Open the door and the windshield whippers will go off. The gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 is salvation. Prove the 120 were all baptized with the spirit: Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. What does ALL mean to you. Them, they, all: Refer back to the Apostles as stated in verse 26 of chapter 1. The text is clear; Acts 2:7 indicates that all those who were speaking in tongues were Galileans. I wouldn't presume that the entire 120 were Galileans. Acts 2:14 Tells us who the men in verse 7 were referring to... "Peter, standing up with the eleven..." Acts 2:37 shows us once again who the multitude spoke to... "...Peter and the rest of the Apostles..." Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe... Do people still believe today? So you're telling me that the distribution of Miraculous Spiritual Gifts will cease when men cease to believe in Jesus? Yet, the Bible tells us at one point they will cease. Are you saying that when these gifts cease, everyone will cease to believe in Jesus? Thus, heaven will be filled with unbelievers? So there is no need for prophecy or gifts when God is revealed to someone, hmmm, that makes no sense, FACE to FACE, what doe's that mean to you? he was not talking about himself. Since you don't understand, I would suggest reading my post again. If you think the Gifts are not needed you are a naive, dead dried up, bench warmer not realizing the whole world is headed for hell. "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation..." Romans 1:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16,17 Please, I am giving you Bible, that is what I read and that is my final authority for all doctrine. You're not giving "Bible." You're giving error. Error can not set a man free.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 16, 2009 17:35:22 GMT -5
The context of Romans 10 is preaching the Word of God to those who have not heard (in case you are unsure these would be "alien sinners"). How can they believe on Him in whom they have not heard? How can they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14) The ones who are calling on the Lord to be saved are those not saved. Agreed, how are you equating this to the sinners prayer?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 13, 2009 6:14:22 GMT -5
joemcowan, Hebrews 6:1-2-One of the principles of the doctrines of Christ is the doctrine of baptism(s)-plural. If the Nicene Creed or anyone else rejects Hebrews 6:1-2 doctrines of Christ including baptism(s) then they are wrong. That verse doesn't prove there's more than one baptism today. The Nicene Creed quotes Ephesians 4:5 "... one Lord, one faith, one baptism." I don't believe the Nicene Creed, I believe the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Apr 13, 2009 6:11:53 GMT -5
Paul spoke in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:18) and thanked God he did it more than anyone! Jesus said those that believe in Him would speak in tongues (Mark 16). And they did.
|
|