Quote:
Originally Posted by BroGary
It seems Peter thought otherwise, that is why he preached Acts 2:38 because his understanding was opened by Jesus after the resurrection.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures |
Peter never preached that you had to have the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues to be saved. If he did please show me where. Peter said that the Holy Ghost (he never even said if it came with speaking in tongues or not) was a gift and was promised to all those that repent and are baptized.
I think that too many people have an erroneous concept of repentance. Repentance is not about turning from sin. Turning from sin will happen, but its not what repentance is, instead turning from sin is a side effect of repentance. Repentance is turning toward righteousness and righteousness is believing on Jesus, for as the scripture says, with the heart man believeth unto righteousness (
Romans 10:9). So, believing on Jesus is the only true turn away from sin for it is the only true turn toward righteousness.
With this in mind it is easy to see how Peter's message of repentance and baptism perfectly parallels Jesus' words in
Mark 16:16. Therefore, Peter promised the Holy Ghost to all those that repent and are baptized but since true repentance is to believe on Jesus then he effictively promised the Holy Ghost to all those that believe and are baptized.
This poses a problem for tongues as initial evidence doctrine. Why? Because we all know someone that truly has believed on Jesus and has been baptized that has not received the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. And we know that God is not slack concerning his promises. Therefore, whatever Holy Ghost Peter promised could not have been the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
Threaded Mode
