Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Phelps
I'm not Jermyn, but I will add my two cents worth.
For a people who pride ourselves on "speaking when the Bible speaks, and being silent when it's silent" this is not a very strong argument.
Why would the writers of the scripture deem in necessary to specify in some cases that they "Spoke with other tongues" and yet not feel it necessary in others?
We can all assume, but the problem with assumptions is that they are just that - assumptions.
Is it possible that in some cases when folks were baptized with the HG they did speak with tongues, and in other cases they didn't?
Its absolutely possible, and so if you ASSUME that everyone who was baptized with the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues because it was mentioned in SOME passages, the assumption that sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't is just as strong and plausible.
|
Ah, but what you just did was assume. You assumed it is possible. And this assumes that where Luke did not mention it then it must not have happened.
The day of Pentecost is obvious. The Gentiles are also obvious. Why the disciples of John I don't know...except maybe to show after all those many years people were still receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues
Threaded Mode
