Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

So, does speaking in tongues really hold as much of a "given" status when it comes to salvation as repentance does?

And, if - in your mind - it does, then why is it that we don't hold folks to the Book of Acts benchmark of speaking in "other" tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, rather than them speaking in an "unknown" tongue?

(Well, I'm convinced that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence that someone has received the Holy Spirit. I'm sure you've probably seen/heard the arguments used to make that case, and I dont particularly feel like going down that road right now... so I'll just leave that there. )

But anyway...Mike, as to your second question, I think you're definitely overthinking this.

Lets take it back to what Jesus said in Mk 16: "These signs shall follow them that believe....they shall speak with new tongues..."

So whether its "other" tongues, or "unknown" tongues... whether its the tongues of men or of angels, it really doesnt matter. It's still speaking in new tongues -- that is "new" at least to the person speaking.

(That's what makes it a "sign"... because the person is speaking a language that is new to him, one that he's never learned. )