Did everyone?

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

Yep. Sho'nuff.

Originally Posted by Ronzo

I guess I missed the hilarity of it...

that would have been in Phils response....

"Ok ... I was just curious"

Originally Posted by freeatlast

that would have been in Phils response....

"Ok ... I was just curious"

Well... I guess if you say it was funny... it must be.


I still don't get it...

[Michael The Disciple]

How about this:

a. Tongues is the only acceptable initial evidence
b. Speaking in tongues was/is a normal experience (perhaps not the only one) that follows the Holy Spirit baptism.

Of these 2 I would go with b.

[Adino]

It does say in the bible that everyone who repents and is baptized will receive the Holy Spirit.

Good job, freeatlast. You went right to the point.

100% agree that not everyone they have seen repent and be baptized in Jesus name has spoken in tongues YET Acts 2:38 plainly states that those who repent and are baptized SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Everyone who repents and is baptized in Jesus name SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Since all who've repented and have been baptized in Jesus name have not spoken in tongues, it follows that either:

A) The author was in error and NOT ALL who repent and are baptized in Jesus name SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

or...

B) The author was correct and all who repent and are baptized in Jesus name indeed SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost but this does not mean they will ALL speak in tongues.

I, personally, choose "B" because I believe Acts 2:38.

If the evidential tongues doctrine is true, why have NOT ALL spoken in tongues who have repented and have been baptized in Jesus name?

[BrotherEastman]

Not everybody did, but everybody should.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Not everybody did, but everybody should.

Praise the Lord, Bro. Eastman. Do you think that Luke, the author of Acts, was incorrect when he said that those who did repent and get baptized in Jesus name WOULD receive the Holy Ghost?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Adino, if you present that repentance and baptism alone show the infilling of the Holy Ghost, how do you dismiss the argument presented that tongues is evidence of the infilling? Likewise, what do you present for evidence of a person having the infilling?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Adino

Praise the Lord, Bro. Eastman. Do you think that Luke, the author of Acts, was incorrect when he said that those who did repent and get baptized in Jesus name WOULD receive the Holy Ghost?

I don't think Luke was incorrect, is that what you wanted to hear? BTW, I do believe one should speak in tongues for me to actually believe they are filled with the HG.

[ManOfWord]

In my over 23 yrs. of pastoring, I have seen some people get baptized and speak in tongues and some get baptized and not speak in tongues.

My observation is that some who haven't spoken in tongues have lived a better Christian life than some who have spoken in tongues. (and, obviously, vice versa)

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

In my over 23 yrs. of pastoring, I have seen some people get baptized and speak in tongues and some get baptized and not speak in tongues.

My observation is that some who haven't spoken in tongues have lived a better Christian life than some who have spoken in tongues. (and, obviously, vice versa)

Of course, that doesn't matter those that have not will fry, according to many.