Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation. - Page 5

DAII · #41 08-09-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And I ask again..........doesn't that seem rather strange?

Self-fulfilling "prophecy" ... yet guys like DeltaGuitar ... was around OPs all his life and for decades did not ... AS A SAVED BELIEVER

but I love your zeal and passion and feelings and anecdotes .... despite the lack of Scripture.

BroGary · #42 08-09-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geekette

But there were and are people who believe it, and then would go through contortions trying to prove that their devout grandmother had spoken in tongues even though she was a staunch Methodist until the day she died (and, truth be told, would never have done anything so undignified).

Of course, that was nothing compared to the hoops people would jump through to prove that their Methodist granny was saved even though she hadn't been baptized in Jesus' Name.

I know there are those who disagree that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost and they have the free will to believe as they want, but for those who do believe it is the initial evidence you probally already know at least some of this, but here is an online tract that gives some very good reasons WHY God chose tongues as the initial evidence -

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/tongues.asp

DAII · #43 08-09-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroGary

I know there are those who disagree that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost and they have the free will to believe as they want, but for those who do believe it is the initial evidence you probally already know at least some of this, but here is an online tract that gives some very good reasons WHY God chose tongues as the initial evidence -

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/tongues.asp

God chose Jesus Christ to save me ... He is the initial evidence ... or the Word/Testimony .... that God loves me and saved me ... I place my trust and reliance wholly on Him for my salvation and new birth.

Pressing-On · #44 08-09-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

It's too bad your definition for belief is not the biblical definition for believing ...

Again, those added the 3,000 or anyone added .... cannot be added to your count of "everyone in Acts spoke in tongues".

Find, preach, teach TRUTH. Jesus Christ.

It's too bad you don't want to see what was all entailed in "believe". Not only believing on His name (Matthew 12:21), who He was (John 5:43), what was prophesied of Him (Isaiah 9:6), but also the promise of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26) - which you now see and hear. (Acts 2:33)

Pressing-On · #45 08-09-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroGary

I know there are those who disagree that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost and they have the free will to believe as they want, but for those who do believe it is the initial evidence you probally already know at least some of this, but here is an online tract that gives some very good reasons WHY God chose tongues as the initial evidence -

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/tongues.asp

I believe that like the Tower of Babel, where God dispersed the people and chose one nation for His purpose, He used tongues to bring us all together again.

DAII · #46 08-09-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It's too bad you don't want to see what was all entailed in "believe". Not only believing on His name (Matthew 12:21), who He was (John 5:43), what was prophesied of Him (Isaiah 9:6), but also the promise of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26) - which you now see and hear. (Acts 2:33)

If it's all entailed then it would be core and plainly evident in the conversions and didactic teachings of the apostles and those they encountered...

PO this view is not apostolic ... nor can you show it biblically ... nor explicitly ... other than weaving proof texts based on your pre-conceived paradigm and experiential notions.

The preponderance of biblical evidence is most definitely not on your side.

Pressing-On · #47 08-09-2010, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

If it's all entailed then it would be core and plainly evident in the conversions and didactic teachings of the apostles ... PO this view is not apostolic ... nor can you show it biblically ... nor explicitly ... other than weaving proof texts based on your pre-conceived paradigm.

The precedent is set in Acts 2. No theologian will dispute this is the beginning of the NT church. What is going on in that chapter? That is Apostolic. Am I more Apostolic than you, Danny?

DAII · #48 08-09-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The precedent is set in Acts 2. No theologian will dispute this is the beginning of the NT church. What is going on in that chapter? That is Apostolic. Am I more Apostolic than you, Danny?

Once again ... not a shred of explicit evidence to prove necessary for salvation. You're as Catholic and sacramental as you've always been.

Pressing-On · #49 08-09-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

Once again ... not a shred of explicit evidence. You're as Catholic and sacramental as you've always been.

That was funny, Danny!

That's why I can't help but like you regardless of your deviance.

BTW, you are the one that has a more recent picture of lighting prayer candles in a Cathedral. Just sayin'.... I am more Apostolic than you!

faithit166 · #50 08-09-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

On your post above... absolutely. They were to wait for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and it came and the Jews from all over the world saw it and knew something different was happening because of the sign of tongues. This was a sign to those who did not believe.

And on the instances where there was no mention of tongues... I've already provided those in another post but I will copy/paste the post here for you.

acts 2;4 states and they were all filled with the holy ghost and began to speak with other tongues,if you do not believe paul spoke in tongues when he recieved the holy ghost when do you think he began speaking in tongues for he stated in 1 corinthians 14;18 i thank my god i speak in tongues more than you all,when peter and john went to samaria and laid hands on them and god filled them with the holy ghost,how do you think peter and john knew they had recieved it,better yet how did phillip know they had not recieved it?how do peter and john know they recieved the holy ghost it could have not been their spiritual fruit,spiritual fruit is borne over time the apostles did not stand there waiting and guessing who had recieved and who had not they new instantly,there had to be a sign of some sort for the sign had to be so dramatic that simon the sorcerer when he saw that this sign was given thru the laying on of the apostles hand he tried to buy it.we know the only sign given on the day of pentecost was that of speaking in tongues!