Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Isn't this statement clear enough?

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Well, I heard it as "repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Which I believe is the three-stepper position?

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Tongues is not the baptism. The ANOINTING is the baptism. Tongues FOLLOW the anointing.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Amen and amen. This is the very accusation people have against whom they call "three steppers" and it is a strawman. No matter how anyone slices it, you cannot accuse something that is claimed to be initial evidence of what is required for salvation to be thing required for salvation based upon that claim. --no matter who among the three step crowd mistakenly treats it as though it were.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Not in EVERY case, but most, IMO.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Every person I've ever known to receive the Holy Ghost, always, without fail, spoke in another tongue. Seems that was also evident in the folks mentioned in the Bible who received it.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Isn't that statement clear enough?

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

1Cr 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Which carries more weight? Charity or speaking in tongues?

Can one be saved without charity, or speaking in tongues or either?

Speaking in tongues is not the ultimate test of salvation!

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Good points

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Amen, and even though (as the original post implied) speaking in tongues is not what saves you, it is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost is part of what is required for salvation. (along with repentence and baptism in Jesus name).

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Actually the New Birth is the ultimate test of salvation...tongues however happens to be a very important part of the New Birth.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

so then all who have never spoken in tongues in the history of the church are lost?

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

yes,

if

speaking with tongues is the initial physical evidence of the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) and nobody has ever received the HGB unless they have spoken with tongues

and

the Holy Ghost Baptism is the birth of the Spirit.

It seems to me that would have to be a fair assessment of that doctrine.

Some of us, however, believe that there is a birth of the Spirit at repentance and the HGB is a separate experience and those who have been born of the Spirit may or may not later receive the HGB.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

This would be not just silly, but sad - knowing only a small minority of Christian heroes I honor and respect has practiced the speaking in tongues phenomenon.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

But there were and are people who believe it, and then would go through contortions trying to prove that their devout grandmother had spoken in tongues even though she was a staunch Methodist until the day she died (and, truth be told, would never have done anything so undignified).

Of course, that was nothing compared to the hoops people would jump through to prove that their Methodist granny was saved even though she hadn't been baptized in Jesus' Name.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

I understand what you are saying, and while we of course want as many people to be saved as possible, we can't just ignore doctrine as unimportant and simply say that just being sincere is enough reguardless of how you believe.

That is why it is so important to stand firm for what the Bible says is a must to be born again and share that truth with others.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

:blink

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

I am just still tring to figure out why he said this was a "gift" and 12 peps pray over someone and they still do not get the "gift"...Thats not how it happened in the bible..everytime someone had there hands laid on them in Acts it happened..So what has changed between then and now...?????

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

LOL! Maybe he will come back and elaborate a little on that last comment.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

No mention of tongues here...

No mention of tongues here...

No mention of tongues here...

I think we would be more Biblically sound to recognize that tongues can be a sign. But to require as part of our doctrine that tongues IS, absolutely, THE initial evidence cannot be unequivocally backed up with scripture.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Of course... because when we view tongues as the initial evidence then no one is considered to have received the Holy Ghost unless they have spoken in tongues. So everyone who received the Holy Ghost did speak in tongues because those who have not spoken in tongues are deemed to have not yet received the Holy Ghost.

The paradigm creates it's own success rate due to the ever successful method of circular reasoning.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Gosh, Digging,
There is more evidence that tongues was the initial evidence in the Book of Acts than not being the evidence. You know the verses. :thumbsup

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Yep.

The principle of first mention as some would like to point out to prove this century old man made doctrine .... is not in Acts 2 .... but rather referenced by the preacher at Pentecost when he points to Joel's prophecy.

The prophecy states that they will prophesy (NOT SPEAK IN TONGUES)... and that the Lord would show his wonders on the heavens and earth ....

Keeping in mind that biblically prophesying is not just foretelling future events but also declaring, teaching, et al.

Those who were there marveled .... marveled mostly because they heard those engaged in xenolalia were sharing/prophesying/declaring or "speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11)

Had it been unintelligible ... or "lalalalalalala" ... they would not have been able to make the connection Peter made early in his message on the day of Pentecost in which he reminds them of the promise ....

The vehicle ... tongues has been confused with what the message OR CONTENT is ...

THE WORKS OF THE LORD ... who is mighty to save FOR THOSE WHO CALL UPON HIS NAME!

That tongues is a prophetic manifestation of Spirit infilling cannot be denied ....

that it is the necessary and universal initial evidentiary sign of the New Birth ... or being born from above ... is not supported didactically or explicitly in Scripture ... at all.

I believe that Acts 10 and 19 support this view ... as we find PURPOSEFUL tongues accompanied with "magnifying the Lord and prophesying" in both instances.

Acts 10: 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Acts 19: 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

There are verses where tongues was evidence that people had received the Holy Ghost. 3 of them. Each of them appear to be in keeping with the scripture that says...

1. On the day of Pentecost when the initial outpouring happened.
2. When Cornelius (the first Gentile) received the Holy Ghost.
3. When the 12 at Ephesus received the Holy Ghost. They had already heard and believed John's gospel they had heard but had, apparently, not been told about the Holy Ghost or about being baptized in Jesus name. Although there is no evidence that they all spoke with tongues. There were 12 there and the Word says they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Did all 12 speak with tongues and then all 12 prophesy? We can't know. But it would seem most likely that some spoke with tongues and some prophesied.

And there are an equal number of biblical references that speak of the Holy Ghost being received with no mention of tongues.

So we have at least a 50/50 split on mentions of tongues and no mention of tongues and yet so many hold hard and fast that tongues is THE evidence that someone has received the Holy Ghost.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Also... one other thing..

Tongues is viewed today as a sign for the believer. Your average pentecostal believer will not accept that you have received the Holy Ghost until they see the sign.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

2 conversions out of 20 or 21 in Acts in which the link between tongues and prophesying are implied or explicitly stated .... does not a template make for all time to obtain salvation or to prove regeneration...

We must search the Scriptures to flesh out such a view ... and there is nothing to support it .... NOTHING .... simply ASSUMPTION AND FEELINGS.

This is not an apostolic doctrine, nor sound hermeneutic.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Could you list them for me?

It seems that Jesus instructed the Disciples to tarry in Jerusalem "until ye be endued with power from on high". (Luke 24:49)

And suddenly, there came a sound from heaven.....

Acts 2:6 ..."and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

Acts 2:33 "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.

What you see and hear, it is the promise of the Father - the Holy Ghost. :thumbsup

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

On your post above... absolutely. They were to wait for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and it came and the Jews from all over the world saw it and knew something different was happening because of the sign of tongues. This was a sign to those who did not believe.

And on the instances where there was no mention of tongues... I've already provided those in another post but I will copy/paste the post here for you.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

I believe the precedent was set (Acts 2:47) and was not necessary to keep mentioning such a tremendous and promised phenomenon. Why would it be necessary after the upper room experience? It was happening. Today, there is so much doubt, it is easy to overlook something hiding in plain sight. :D

I also find it remarkable that those making the comments that the sign is not necessarily speaking in tongues - all DO speak in tongues. Don't you find that rather strange?

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

DA... I know this is asking a lot... and... "no... I don't have time" is a perfectly good answer.

But would you be able to provide the scriptures for the 21 conversions in Acts? I don't have a list of that many conversions and it would help to have all of those instances.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

What is Acts 2:47 a precendent for? All that says is that God added to the church daily.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

The phenomenon is Salvation through Jesus Christ ... who gives the life quickening gift of the Holy Spirit ....

The rest is PO trying to validate her exclusive corner on Truth based on assumption.

PO ... search for Truth.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Thank God for Bernie Gillespie ....

Here is a great tool that shows a customized chart showing how lop-sided the difference is ... when weighed with the 3 stepper paradigm of salvation ... in comparison to the universal concept of faith/belief/repentance ....

I'd keep in mind that I do not consider the Apostles in Acts 2 to be a conversion ....

http://inchristalone.org/Conversions.htm

The apostolic letters do not address the notion salvific tongues at all. It would seem paramount ... if it was so the case ... AND THE MESSAGE

No 6 HGs or 12 H20 status postings either.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

I figured that you did not count them as a conversion because you said 2 of 21 and there are 3 scriptures where tongues is mention in relation to someone receiving the Holy Ghost. It made the most sense that you were not considering the Apostles as a conversion.

Thanks for the link.

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Do I have to follow you? Not happenin'. :nah :heeheehee

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

That what occurred at the beginning of Acts 2, was happening in verse 47. That is a precedent.

Hiding in plain sight.....

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

Only two conversions (Acts 10 and 19) ... in which we find tongues accompanying prophesying or magnifying the Lord (inferred and explicitly stated) as FIRST stated by God through the prophet Joel .... Let's preach the Word and not our fancies.

Those who call upon His name ... a Hebrew idiomatic expression for placing faith on the testator ... SHALL BE SAVED.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_rjZMUSTyomU/TG...ieftongues.png

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

And so they believed what Peter told them when they asked what all of this they were seeing and hearing meant?

Acts 2:47 "Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

And I ask again..........doesn't that seem rather strange?

Re: Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.
 

It's too bad your definition for belief is not the biblical definition for believing ...

Again, those added the 3,000 or anyone added .... cannot be added to your count of "everyone in Acts spoke in tongues".

Find, preach, teach TRUTH. Jesus Christ.