Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
So Peter was mistaken ( Acts 10:45-46) and should have waited maybe a year to testify they had recieved the Holy Ghost? |
Put
Acts 10 in context: The church had just been born. It began at Jerusalem, spread to Judea, on to Samaria and now to the uttermost (the Gentiles). Peter was as hard headed as many today and had to see a supernatural sign to believe that the Gentiles had been accepted by God.
Some believe that the sign of tongues (as Paul spoke
1 Cor 14) is a sign to those who do not believe, and apparently Peter needed that sign to believe because he said, "Can anyone prevent these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." This was a sign the Peter and the other circumsized believers needed.
HEre is a question for you: Is there a record anywhere the Holy Spirit is the subject of teaching and speaking in tongues is mentioned as the evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit? I have searched and the only place where I find a teaching on the HOly Spirit that involves speaking in tongues is where Paul is asking if all speak in tongues inthe Corinthians passage.
The fact is if God had intended the initial evidence doctrine to be taught he would have plainly said, "Speaking in tongues is the evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit." The fact that there is no verbage like that in all of the Bible we have to include that God himself did not think it was important as some of us do.
Just my opinion...
Threaded Mode
