Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Your arguement is simply not valid, Mark 16:16 does not specify repentence either, but surely you agree repentence is a must, so just because every verse that relates to salvation does not focus on every aspect of what is required does not mean it is not a must.

My argument is valid and even applies to repentance. I'll walk you through it.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If repentance is required for salvation then every single person that has believed and been baptized must repent or else Jesus was wrong about how he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (for there would be some that believed and were baptized but not saved). Therefore, all I need to find is one example of a person that believes and was baptized but never repented to disprove that repenting is required for salvation.

I don't know of any such person do you? Therefore, everyone that believes and has been baptized has repented.

Further, believing on Jesus is the greatest form of repentance there is for there is no greater way that a man can turn from sin than by turning toward God and by believing on Jesus one has turned toward God.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Amen, Sis. Alvear,

The first sign of life in a new born, natural or spiritual, is a SOUND! It may
be a long time before that "tree" bears fruit! It will need to be watered, nur-
tured, pruned, etc. before it becomes a "fruitful tree". A new born-again babe
in Christ, SHOULD desire the sincere milk of the Word, that it may grow thereby.
A newborn natural babe, should desire mother's milk. Today the makers of
formula make a substitute for mother's milk. Nothing replaces the way GOD
made for babies, naturally or spiritually, to be nourished.

Some babies may have been fed "junk" food and drink all their lives. I've
seen young mothers put soft drinks, etc. in their infants bottles. Those
babies will desire "junk" food and drink, unless someone introduces them to
something more nourishing. I hear children say, "I don't like milk". WHY do they
not like millk! We eleven siblings were "fed the sincere milk of the Word" from
a child. Most, if not all of us, LIKE MILK! But we like MEAT TOO, since we are
now all adults.

1Cor.13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought
as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Jesus told his disciples, "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit and
they are life." Yet, there were those who got so angry at his words, they
wanted to kill him!

Hugs,
Falla39

Trees don't make a sound when they are born and only trees bear fruit. The sound that a tree makes is only made with the wind which comes and goes as it pleases.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Trees don't make a sound when they are born and only trees bear fruit. The sound that a tree makes is only made with the wind which comes and goes as it pleases.

Isaiah 61:1-4

1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.

5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.


Trees among other things, provide lumber for building. Jesus said he was going to build HIS church..... What's he going to build it out of! Righteous trees! God said, "Their righteosuness shall be of me". We are His workman ship, His building. For an habitation in the Spirit"!

Matt. 15:13
"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up".

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by jfrog

My argument is valid and even applies to repentance. I'll walk you through it.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If repentance is required for salvation then every single person that has believed and been baptized must repent or else Jesus was wrong about how he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (for there would be some that believed and were baptized but not saved). Therefore, all I need to find is one example of a person that believes and was baptized but never repented to disprove that repenting is required for salvation.

I don't know of any such person do you? Therefore, everyone that believes and has been baptized has repented.

Further, believing on Jesus is the greatest form of repentance there is for there is no greater way that a man can turn from sin than by turning toward God and by believing on Jesus one has turned toward God.

We can say the same thing for the necessity of receiving the Holy Ghost, Mark 16:16 does not specify that either but we know it is required from other verses I have already shared.

The bottom line is that Peter got it right on the day of Pentecost when he shared that repentence, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost are all needed.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

My argument is valid and even applies to repentance. I'll walk you through it.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If repentance is required for salvation then every single person that has believed and been baptized must repent or else Jesus was wrong about how he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (for there would be some that believed and were baptized but not saved). Therefore, all I need to find is one example of a person that believes and was baptized but never repented to disprove that repenting is required for salvation.

I don't know of any such person do you? Therefore, everyone that believes and has been baptized has repented.

Further, believing on Jesus is the greatest form of repentance there is for there is no greater way that a man can turn from sin than by turning toward God and by believing on Jesus one has turned toward God.

Exactly.

And if they were baptized, sans belief, their baptism is invalid anyway.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Amen, Sis. Alvear,

The first sign of life in a new born, natural or spiritual, is a SOUND! It may
be a long time before that "tree" bears fruit! It will need to be watered, nur-
tured, pruned, etc. before it becomes a "fruitful tree".

Here's the problem with the initial evidence doctrine. Too many folks want to play God. Because we are not able to know for sure who truly in their heart believes, and are too impatient to wait for the fruit, people want to force tongues into salvation so that THEY can determine who is saved and who is not.

What is the real FRUIT of this doctrine? BORAT

Though I don't at all agree with what he did, and believe He is probably guilty of blashpemy, He did expose just how weak that doctrine is, and how some "men of God" lack some very basic discernment. But He "made a sound". Whatever.

Originally Posted by Falla39

A new born-again babe
in Christ, SHOULD desire the sincere milk of the Word, that it may grow thereby.
A newborn natural babe, should desire mother's milk. Today the makers of
formula make a substitute for mother's milk. Nothing replaces the way GOD
made for babies, naturally or spiritually, to be nourished.

Yet some substitute sensationalism for the sincere milk of the Word. And this emotionalism is called "the Spirit", yet one of the FRUITS of the Spirit (according to the Bible, which by the way doesn't call tongues a fruit of the Spirit) is self-control. Guess how many times THAT message is preached in contradiction to "get jiggy with it for Jesus" and the such like.

Originally Posted by Falla39

1Cor.13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought
as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Strange, 1 Corinthians 13 is a chapter devoted to the importance of love in a Christian life, which just happens to be ANOTHER one of the FRUITS of the Spirit (BTW-tongues ISN'T a fruit of the Spirit according to the Bible).

Furthermore, Paul directly follows his teaching on love with a rebuke and correction of the Corinthians use of tongues in the church. Hardly something to build an initial evidence doctrine on. Reminds me of when AM said at Genreal Conference "Every one speak in tongues when I say NOW.....NOW!"

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Here's the problem with the initial evidence doctrine. Too many folks want to play God. Because we are not able to know for sure who truly in their heart believes, and are too impatient to wait for the fruit, people want to force tongues into salvation so that THEY can determine who is saved and who is not.

What is the real FRUIT of this doctrine? BORAT

Though I don't at all agree with what he did, and believe He is probably guilty of blashpemy, He did expose just how weak that doctrine is, and how some "men of God" lack some very basic discernment. But He "made a sound". Whatever.

Yet some substitute sensationalism for the sincere milk of the Word. And this emotionalism is called "the Spirit", yet one of the FRUITS of the Spirit (according to the Bible, which by the way doesn't call tongues a fruit of the Spirit) is self-control. Guess how many times THAT message is preached in contradiction to "get jiggy with it for Jesus" and the such like.

Strange, 1 Corinthians 13 is a chapter devoted to the importance of love in a Christian life, which just happens to be ANOTHER one of the FRUITS of the Spirit (BTW-tongues ISN'T a fruit of the Spirit according to the Bible).

Furthermore, Paul directly follows his teaching on love with a rebuke and correction of the Corinthians use of tongues in the church. Hardly something to build an initial evidence doctrine on. Reminds me of when AM said at Genreal Conference "Every one speak in tongues when I say NOW.....NOW!"

Trying to "orchestrate" a group to speak in tongues on command does not seem quite right, but when someone is receiving the Holy Ghost for the very first time it is out of their control when first speak in tongues as the initial evidence.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame....

(of course I know that those of you who don't accept that tongues is the initial evidence will try to reason it away, but that is already expected so we just "agree to disagree :-)

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by BroGary

The bottom line is that Peter got it right on the day of Pentecost when he shared that repentence, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost are all needed.

Yes, Peter did get it right.

Peter clearly stated repentance and baptism as commands.

Peter clearly states that one will receive the Holy Ghost-- as a promise, not a command.

Gary, even verse 39 presents the Holy Spirit as a promise-- not a command.

Why aren't we connecting here?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Yes, Peter did get it right.

Peter clearly stated repentance and baptism as commands.

Peter clearly states that one will receive the Holy Ghost-- as a promise, not a command.

Gary, even verse 39 presents the Holy Spirit as a promise-- not a command.

Why aren't we connecting here?

Luke 24:49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Acts 1:4 "And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

Jermyn,
Jesus "commanded" them to "tarry in Jerusalem" until they were endued with that promised power.

Jesus told them to "wait for the promise".

It was something that He gave them. Something they could not give themselves. That is why it is called a "gift" and a "promise", yet Jesus still gave them instructions on the receiving of the promise - a command. He "commanded" them not to depart from Jerusalem until they were filled.

Peter then identifies the promise - the evidence of that promise -

Acts 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

It's really very simple.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Luke 24:49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Acts 1:4 "And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

Jermyn,
Jesus "commanded" them to "tarry in Jerusalem" until they were endued with that promised power.

Jesus told them to "wait for the promise".

It was something that He gave them. Something they could not give themselves. That is why it is called a "gift" and a "promise", yet Jesus still gave them instructions on the receiving of the promise - a command. He "commanded" them not to depart from Jerusalem until they were filled.

Peter then identifies the promise - the evidence of that promise -

Acts 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

It's really very simple.

THANK YOU!

This makes really good sense!

Being raised in this, I have not seen it in this light before.


However, what about the Ethiopian and the jailer-- were they saved or not saved at the end of the biblical narratives about their conversion experiences?