The Biblical response to ACTS 2:38

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Remember that when the report was given to the Jerusalem council concerning Cornelius and his household they identified tongues as the "proof" that the Holy Ghost had fallen on the gentiles the same as it had on the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that every time the writer of the book of Acts says someone received the Holy Ghost they are making that statement based on what they had established as the "initial" sign. If there had been any other "alternative" proof of having received the Holy Ghost it would have been noted.

Amen, simply put and very true !

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by corvet786c

So are you saying we dont need to speak in tongues and still be saved or we do need to speak in tongues to be saved?

Either everyone who never spoken in tongues is lost, or their not.

Point blank, I am saying that I don't think the Bible supports the assertion that has been made by modern oneness pentecostals that if someone doesn't speak in tongues they are lost.

Many try to skirt the issue with such statements as "I'm not God, I don't judge."

We (as a movement) speak of how if someone hasn't spoken in tonuges, they are lost, none of His, etc. The conclusion is simple. If we teach someone who hasn't spoken in tongues isn't saved, then obviously they are a lost unregerate sinner. Not much different from a pagan or heathen.

YET, we willingly sing the songs they write, read their Bible commentaries and other resource books, use their Bible translations (KJV), etc. all while damning them to hell. And for what other reason EXCEPT they haven't spoken in tonuges.

I'm tired of seeing good people who may perhaps make good Christians, they attend church, they have been baptized in his name, their faithful, BUT because they haven't spoken in tongues they are treated like outsiders--so they get discouraged and give up. Sometimes not only on Pentecostal, but on church and God all together. They are often greeted with the attitude that we're glad to have them come (and certainly give in the offering) but they're taught they can't be used in the church, neither are they going to heaven, UNLESS they speak in tongues.

So the point of this thread is that when examined closely Peter's command gave two specific instruction for the hearer 1)repent 2)be baptized. We see in the text that those who recieved His word were baptized (and due to the context, I believe any reasonable mind would conclude the same repented thus leading to their baptism).

That was the responsibility of the hearers, the Holy Ghost was to be bestowed upon them as a GIFT, not something they must (or even were capable) of doing.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by bishoph

While there is no doubt that some things are commanded/prescribed and other things are descriptive.....there are descriptive things that also explain how the prescribed is fulfilled or what some would call the normative response/pattern. IMHO the bolded statement is what makes your conclusion false.

I agree that Acts 2:38 tells us what 'Must" happen! However, the historical evidence in the rest of the book tells us "how" that "must" was fulfilled. In all but one case that any received the Holy Ghost, it was evidenced specifically by speaking with tongues, and IMHO it is easy to deduct from all of the other instances that the Samaritan's experience was the same.

Remember that when the report was given to the Jerusalem council concerning Cornelius and his household they identified tongues as the "proof" that the Holy Ghost had fallen on the gentiles the same as it had on the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that every time the writer of the book of Acts says someone received the Holy Ghost they are making that statement based on what they had established as the "initial" sign. If there had been any other "alternative" proof of having received the Holy Ghost it would have been noted.

Luke, "the writer of the book of Acts" uses the phrase filled with the Holy Ghost many times in his writing. Would you say tounges were present in ALL instances? Do you read more into the meaning of Luke's words than He did himself?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Point blank, I am saying that I don't think the Bible supports the assertion that has been made by modern oneness pentecostals that if someone doesn't speak in tongues they are lost.

Jason!!! Welcome to the world of grace!! It's amazing! You're on the slippery slope to my side of the fence!


By the way, I'm sorry I haven't responded to your PM. There were a bunch of things I wanted to respond to and I didn't have the time, and then I put if off, and still haven't done it. Sorry, man.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Jason!!! Welcome to the world of grace!! It's amazing! You're on the slippery slope to my side of the fence!


By the way, I'm sorry I haven't responded to your PM. There were a bunch of things I wanted to respond to and I didn't have the time, and then I put if off, and still haven't done it. Sorry, man.

No problem. NOW, you're way down the slope, you'll have to send me postcards from your POV, because there are places on that slope I don't plan to see.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No problem. NOW, you're way down the slope, you'll have to send me postcards from your POV, because there are places on that slope I don't plan to see.

Oooooooo......that hurt, a little bit, Jason. Sniffle. What are you implying?

But if you're ever interested in filling up your church with people who swore they'd never, ever walk in a church, just come on down the slope and visit me. I'll help you fill it up with people who need Jesus! One warning, though. It's not easy and it'll cost you everything!

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Oooooooo......that hurt, a little bit, Jason. Sniffle. What are you implying?
But if you're ever interested in filling up your church with people who swore they'd never, ever walk in a church, just come on down the slope and visit me. I'll help you fill it up with people who need Jesus! One warning, though. It's not easy and it'll cost you everything!

Think AI thread as for what I'm implying. I think there's a much more definite line between the world and the church than you draw.

But I totally agree with your approach on people. I remember onetime when someone made the comment about having to compete with the Baptists on trying to get people to come to church, and your response was something along the lines of "Why compete, just reach out to the drug heads, and prostititues and alchoholics and agnostics."

So true. We're not competing with each other, but we should be working together despite our differences. You and me have very distinct differences, yet I would not let it hinder our fellowship so long as our goal is the same, to bring the lost person to repentance in Jesus Christ.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Think AI thread as for what I'm implying. I think there's a much more definite line between the world and the church than you draw.

But I totally agree with your approach on people. I remember onetime when someone made the comment about having to compete with the Baptists on trying to get people to come to church, and your response was something along the lines of "Why compete, just reach out to the drug heads, and prostititues and alchoholics and agnostics."

So true. We're not competing with each other, but we should be working together despite our differences. You and me have very distinct differences, yet I would not let it hinder our fellowship so long as our goal is the same, to bring the lost person to repentance in Jesus Christ.

Oh come on, you're not still stuck on that stupid Adam Lambert thing, are you? Dang, why can't I like the way a guy sings? How many Christians stormed the ticket counters to go see a Ray Boltz concert? Oops, turns out he was gay. So was James Cleveland.....should we even get this list going? I just like his singing!! For crying out loud!!

Fine, so there's a "line" between "The church" and "The World". But I don't see it as "Us vs. Them" and never will.

My offer stands, by the way, if you wanna reach broken people. But like I said....it's costs everything.

[Jason B]

NOW, I appreciate your input. And while I'm tempted to continue the dialouge with you, its getting me off track here.

I was hoping maybe the good Ev. Williams would come on here and explain my error in concluding that tongues has nothing to do with "obeying" Acts 2:38.

PS-NOW, your input is welcome on this thread.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by notofworks

... How many Christians stormed the ticket counters to go see a Ray Boltz concert? Oops, turns out he was gay. ...

Well,
gay or not
or
struggling with his sexuality or not,
he was anointed and blessed many.