Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Paul did not hope for pipedreams that could not be fulfilled.

Acts 19
2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

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

6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7And all the men were about twelve.

8And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.


Nothing changed. Those that didn't recieve the baptisms spake evil.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I know Apostolics who would disagree with you concerning the bolded.


Nevertheless, where I depart from my Apostolic upbringing is the conclusivity that speaking in tongues is THE ONLY MARKER that designates the begining of salvation.


There have been some great points brought up, but no one who believes the initial tongues doctrine can explain away the Phillipian jailer or the Ethiopian.


Please, MFBLUME address these two clear cases, when you have the time.

Furthermore, where are these "holes" that someone suggested was in the "one-stepper" doctrine?

The overall point is that Acts certainly did not record the details of every single conversion that occurred at the time, including the little boy at the corner of Straight Street with the puppy dog that specifically was given to him from his aunt on the other side of town. lol

Acts shows the major events tat occurred by homing in on the fulfillment of how Jerusalem, Judaea and Samaria and the uttermost peoples would be reached. Acts 2. Acts 8 and Acts 10. Then we even get those from other faiths, or should I say incomplete faiths. Acts 19.
In each of these cases it is evident they spoke with tongues.

Individual conversions like the jailer and the Ethiopian were for other purposes showing other details we are required to know about conversion. The baptism of the Ethiopian shows, among other things, who should and who should not be baptized (" If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"), and also shows that baptism is not a show or statement to a church, for no congregation was there to witness it. The jailer's case showed how important it was to experience baptism the same hour as belief occurred, among other things.

The point is that the Acts explains facts about new birth that we need to understand through living examples. It shows three major events covering all ethnic backgrounds with the people speaking in tongues.

I leave those whom God wishes to not bring into glory up to God. So I am not judging those who have never spoken in tongues. I am just saying what the bible said.