The Old Paths,
I have heard people talk about something to the affect that the salvation experiences in Acts don't all agree and they don't have to because you don't have to repeat every little detail....
I never grasped what they were talking about.
I ask you, was the Phillipian jailer saved? Was the Ethiopian eunuch saved?
After
Acts 2:38, and all those folks who believed and were added to the church, the Bible doesn't state that they spoke in tongues.
In I Co when Paul asks the question, "Do all speak in tongues?" I have heard many state he was referring to the gift of tongues. But if that was the case, why didn't he make that distinction clearly? To the question, "Do all speak in tongues" the answer would be yes-- but from the scripture, one can gather the answer is "No", for Paul's purpose.
Another thing about speaking in tongues is that it is not the person speaking that's doing it anyway-- it's the Lord (supposed to be).
So if the Lord just doesn't allow someone to speak in tongues, they're lost?
I have read your posts and will read them again. One thing that comes to mind is with Abraham. The Bible speaks that Abraham was justified by faith before he took part in the circumcision covenant.
The NT comparison for circumcision would be water baptism. The believer comes into a covenant relationship with the Lord by faith and then to certify that covenant, the believer gets baptized.