The Biblical response to ACTS 2:38

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by snicker1986

Thank You!!

This is the most concise description I have ever seen of what I have long beleived.

I DO beleive that tongues is an experience that God gives us to confirm is presence with us, and bring us closer to him, but I have NEVER gotten a good explanation for how one could be repentant, have his sins washed away, and yet end up in hell.

In scriptural study, one must always identify passages as descriptive (things that DID happen) from perscriptive (things that MUST happen). Tongues on receiving the holy Ghost, as noted in the 4 Acts stories that are used to show tongues as evidence, are things that DID happen. Acts 2:38 tells us what MUST happen.

Some would say everything that DID happen MUST happen again, but passages about the OT patriarchs multiple wives and concubines were clearly historic descriptions and not an instruction to us today. So to the descriptions in Acts of the early church living communally.

Dont get me wrong...Tongues are to be desired for spiritual growth, and should be taught.....but not as salvational

While there is no doubt that some things are commanded/prescribed and other things are descriptive.....there are descriptive things that also explain how the prescribed is fulfilled or what some would call the normative response/pattern. IMHO the bolded statement is what makes your conclusion false.

I agree that Acts 2:38 tells us what 'Must" happen! However, the historical evidence in the rest of the book tells us "how" that "must" was fulfilled. In all but one case that any received the Holy Ghost, it was evidenced specifically by speaking with tongues, and IMHO it is easy to deduct from all of the other instances that the Samaritan's experience was the same.

Remember that when the report was given to the Jerusalem council concerning Cornelius and his household they identified tongues as the "proof" that the Holy Ghost had fallen on the gentiles the same as it had on the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that every time the writer of the book of Acts says someone received the Holy Ghost they are making that statement based on what they had established as the "initial" sign. If there had been any other "alternative" proof of having received the Holy Ghost it would have been noted.