Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

How do we know He didn't obey? We do know that many (most likely all) of the disciples were baptized with the baptism of repentance. The fact remains the Bible never speaks of, or even hints at a second baptism for Peter or any of the original disciples.

So, the apostles thought it was important enough to make other people who were already baptized unto John's baptism of repentence to get baptized in name of Jesus, but they themselves were exempt ? I don't think so :-)

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by BroGary

So, the apostles thought it was important enough to make other people who were already baptized unto John's baptism of repentence to get baptized in name of Jesus, but they themselves were exempt ? I don't think so :-)

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Bro. Gary, in Acts 19 the disciples were disciples of John who had not appearently heard of Jesus, but were only baptized knowing a Messiah would come.

Am I saying Peter wasn't baptized in Jesus name? No, I am not. What I am saying is that scripture never speaks or even hints that any of the disciples were rebaptized in Jesus name, which if it is paramount to salvation, you would think there would be at lease a mention in passing somewhere in the Word.

The fact that there is not speaks volumes against your doctrine of necessary invocation, and the same can be said against the doctrine of initial evidence.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

So how do you explain those who DO SPEAK WITH TONGUES, yet are hateful, gossiping, have no self control, are unhappy, and yield pratically NO fruit of the Spirit, that is unless you count things as fruit that the Bible doesn't, such as tongues, dress codes, and the such like. None of those things are fruit in the Biblical sense, those many pulpits have attempted to classify them as such.

If speaking in tongues is absolutely required of ALL believers, so is casting out devils.

Furthermore, you stopped a verse too soon. If casting out devils is literal, and tongues is literal (as we would agree), and if tongues is for EVERY BELIEVER WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then so would also be drinking deadly poison and taking up snakes. IF we're going for ABSOLUTE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANTY, using your hermunetic, I would say the Snake Handlers have more to boast about.

Again, you're not quoting the whole verse, I'll help you out it concludes "and magnify God."

They spoke in tongues yes, but they obviously spoke something intelligable to someone. Tongues isn't repeating sounds, nor unknown languages, but rather supernaturally bestowed UNLEARNED languages. Tongues is ALWAYS an actual language.



I've known many who supposedly reached the stage of "stammering lips" but didn't speak in tongues, therefore didn't get the Holy Ghost. TONGUES isn't the rest, belief IS (Hebrews 4).

Bump, for Bro. Gary, from post #128

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Let's stick with your theme:

Other scriptures show Communion is a MUST.
Other scriptures show Foot Washing is a MUST.
Other scriptures show Child Bearing is a MUST.
Other scriptures show Tithing is a MUST.

Bump for Bro. Gary, from post #130

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Bro. Gary, in Acts 19 the disciples were disciples of John who had not appearently heard of Jesus, but were only baptized knowing a Messiah would come.

Am I saying Peter wasn't baptized in Jesus name? No, I am not. What I am saying is that scripture never speaks or even hints that any of the disciples were rebaptized in Jesus name, which if it is paramount to salvation, you would think there would be at lease a mention in passing somewhere in the Word.

The fact that there is not speaks volumes against your doctrine of necessary invocation, and the same can be said against the doctrine of initial evidence.

Several of us have already answered your disagreements if you choose to dismiss it that is your free will choice, but we have already clearly shown that baptism must be in Jesus name and the initial evidence is indeed tongues.

Again, the apostles had no special exemption from having had to obey the same message that Peter preached in Acts 2:38.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BroGary

So, the apostles thought it was important enough to make other people who were already baptized unto John's baptism of repentence to get baptized in name of Jesus, but they themselves were exempt ? I don't think so :-)

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Gee, that was easy!

[jfrog]

Romans 10:8-13

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

What is it that Paul preaches?
What shall happen when someone shall call upon the name of the Lord?

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Romans 10:8-13

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

What is it that Paul preaches?
What shall happen when someone shall call upon the name of the Lord?

Why not continue on a little farther. It is important HOW we call upon the
LORD!
Psalm 145:18
The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [/B]

Paul is speaking to all that be in Rome, called to be saints.
This is speaking to those in Rome who have already been called
to be saints. Those who have already received the Holy Ghost.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Several of us have already answered your disagreements if you choose to dismiss it that is your free will choice, but we have already clearly shown that baptism must be in Jesus name and the initial evidence is indeed tongues.
Again, the apostles had no special exemption from having had to obey the same message that Peter preached in Acts 2:38.

Have you clearly shown from scripture? Proven with sound biblical exegesis and contextual support? If so, please provide the post numbers so that I may study those scriptures and cross refences to see if there is indeed something I have overlooked.

So far all I have seen is opinion with little scriptural support. Quoting a scripture does not alone validate a point. Many quote Deuteronomy 22:5 to support a doctrine that a woman cannot wear a pair of jeans, however when that scripture is taken in context with its surrounding scripture, as well as in context with the whole of scripture, that doctrine fails miserably.

The same with the initial evidence doctrine. Which scripture do you have that states that tongues, and only tongues, is the proof of reception of the Holy Ghost? Again, if you have already posted scriptural proof of the initial evidence doctrine, please alert my attention to the post number, so that I may consider the arguments thereof, and post a rebuttal if necessary.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Have you clearly shown from scripture? Proven with sound biblical exegesis and contextual support? If so, please provide the post numbers so that I may study those scriptures and cross refences to see if there is indeed something I have overlooked.

So far all I have seen is opinion with little scriptural support. Quoting a scripture does not alone validate a point. Many quote Deuteronomy 22:5 to support a doctrine that a woman cannot wear a pair of jeans, however when that scripture is taken in context with its surrounding scripture, as well as in context with the whole of scripture, that doctrine fails miserably.

The same with the initial evidence doctrine. Which scripture do you have that states that tongues, and only tongues, is the proof of reception of the Holy Ghost? Again, if you have already posted scriptural proof of the initial evidence doctrine, please alert my attention to the post number, so that I may consider the arguments thereof, and post a rebuttal if necessary.

So you're off-base on other doctrine too.

Anyhow, nothing personal, but you go back and reread everything, I'm not going to waste my time picking it all out for someone who didn't want to accept the truth we all presented already.

It's late, but this is some scripture that shows people do speak in tongues when they get filled with the Holy Ghost -

....was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues.... Acts 10:45, 46