I have a question!! What about all the people that lived in the 18th and 19th century in America??? Are they lost?? Why, if tongues are essential to salvation, do we not hear of it until 1900????
Some Mormons in the 19th Century exhibited the "initial evidence", not to mention a number of Shamans, Hindus, etc., at various periods.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Some Mormons in the 19th Century exhibited the "initial evidence", not to mention a number of Shamans, Hindus, etc., at various periods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
There were many reports of this throughout history - "glossolalia," "xenolalia" (foreign languages as in Acts 2) and many vague references to "ecstatic utterances" and such. The thing is, these reports appear along side other reports among non-Christian sects and religions exhibiting their own "speaking in tongues" phenomena.
You are correct about the dearth of such reports in the time period that you have cited - but I don't think the reports are absent entirely.
In any event - why has absolutely no Christian in history ever suggested that this was the defacto standard of salvation until the development of the Oneness Pentecostal "Three Step" or "Water & Spirit" doctrine?
Your question is a valid one.
Uh, .... great minds? (Nah. Not me and Pel. )
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I have a question!! What about all the people that lived in the 18th and 19th century in America??? Are they lost?? Why, if tongues are essential to salvation, do we not hear of it until 1900????
Well, we OP's have several answers for that,
1. There has always been a church that preached Oneness of the Godhead and Acts 2:38 and those folks in 18th and 19th century America who weren't part of that group are of course lost.
2. Acts 2:38 hadn't been re-revealed during 18th and 19th century America so those folks back there had no light on it and were therefore saved by walking in whatever light they had.
3. Yes those folks in 18th and 19th century America were lost even though nobody happened to be preaching Acts 2:38 then. If those folks were really sincere, God would have revealed Acts 2:38 to them and they could have been saved.
4. Tongues is a gift from God, the evidence of the Holy Ghost baptism, but the Holy Ghost Baptism is separate from salvation so those 18th and 19th century Americans were saved if they believed in Jesus.
There may be other OP answers. These seem to summarize various OP theological opinions as I understand it.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
.....and I would still believe that tongues is the initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit, or that what's said at baptism means anything, or that words like "Trinity" and "Oneness" are meaningful at all, or that one verse in the book of Acts is the only verse in the bible that matters!
NOW,
thou art not far from the Kingdom,
there may be hope for you yet......
...
In any event - why has absolutely no Christian in history ever suggested that this was the defacto standard of salvation until the development of the Oneness Pentecostal "Three Step" or "Water & Spirit" doctrine?
...
Yes, that's the statement that we're discussing in this thread. Bro. Osborn said that the current set of doctrines should not be questioned and should not be analyzed. His supporters in this thread have said repeatedly that his comments were intended to be for the Bible and not OP doctrine. Either way, what Bro. Osborn was defending and demanding that no one question was simply NOT the "pristine" teaching of the NT apostles.
The current ire that you see in this thread toward that "one statement" is generally caused by the fact that this "one statement" resonates with so much that so many of us have been told over the years. I could give many examples:
WOW, ire? I really thought I was agreeing with you but it seems that I have been misinterpreted. I assure you there was no ire intended... I was just making a statement. Please forgive me if I have offended you in some way.
WOW, ire? I really thought I was agreeing with you but it seems that I have been misinterpreted. I assure you there was no ire intended... I was just making a statement. Please forgive me if I have offended you in some way.
God Bless.
I'm not offended, Rose. The "ire" I had in mind was your post but was intended to be a reference back to the thread in general. I'm sorry that it came across the way that it did. My posting style tends to be like my typing - frenetic staccatos of thought stitched together with way too many conjunctions.
)
Linear Mode
