Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Isn't prophesying also a biblically noted evidence of spirit baptism?

Not to the degree tongues is, when we consider everyone is meant to pray in tongues.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not to the degree tongues is, when we consider everyone is meant to pray in tongues.

Have you seen the long list of scriptures where people being filled with the spirit was evidenced by prophesying I listed in my Prophesying Versus Speaking In Tongues thread?

1. On the day of Pentecost Peter said of what was going on... THIS IS THAT. This is that spoken of by the prophet Joel. Did Joel said your sons & daughters will speak in tongues? He didn't. He said your sons & daughters will prophesy. The people heard them, in their own tongue, tell the wonderful works of God. This is very similar to what we find Zacharias said when he began to prophesy (as a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit).

Since Joel said their sons & daughters would prophesy... and what the countrymen heard these men saying (in their own tongue) sounds similar to what Zacharias uttered as prophesy... and since Peter said this is that... Can't we find it hard to rule out that what these men heard (in their own tongue) was people prophesying?

It is clear that in Acts 19 there were 12 men who received the Holy Spirit and they spake in tongues and prophesied. What reason would we have to assume that all 12 spoke and tongues... and then all 12 prophesied? Can't we find it hard to rule out that when they were filled with the Holy Spirit some of them spoke in tongues and some of them prophesied?

In the OT there are examples where people were told that God's spirit would come upon them and when it did there would be a sign... they would prophesy.

There are 3 scriptures that show conversions where tongues were present and 2 of the 3 have possible connotations to prophesies while one of those 2 is definite.

The Bible is replete with examples of men prophesying as a result of being come upon or filled with the Holy Spirit.

[mfblume]

Speaking wonderful works of God in another language is tongues, not prophesying.

It is more sensational to speak in tongues as the speaker does not know what he is speaking.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Speaking wonderful works of God in another language is tongues, not prophesying.

It is more sensational to speak in tongues as the speaker does not know what he is speaking.

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?


I believe I can plug those "holes" using nothing but scripture in a way where the scriptures are presented clearly and without some unique interpretation that would require that one catch a "revelation" to understand.

After all, I am not sure in the likelihood of a fool catching any revelation, yet GOD gives hope even for the fool-- without understanding a "revelation."

[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.