Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.

[mfblume]

Tongues, as diggingfortruth noted, was said by Paul to be for all. He would not will for all to speak in tongues if all could not. And we know the GIFT is not for all, since it distinctly reads God gives severally as He wills. Not only that, but 1 Cor 14 places tongues as for prayer, and no one would be exempt from that opportunity. So there is a form of tongues apart from the gift due to these facts. It is true that the bible does not explicitly associate tongues with salvation. But it is evidence of Spirit baptism, and nothing else is ever noted to be INITIAL evidence as tongues is. I think there is discrepancy between receiving the Spirit into one's life and the baptism of the Spirit. As I said, that cannot be proved otherwise, nor proved for my case either. But due to what IS written, I believe Spirit Baptism is one and the same as receiving the Spirit, and is for POWER, to be sure, and necessary for Kingdom life. So basically I will not say someone is hellbound who has not spoken in tongues, since the Bible did not say that plainly, but I preach for everyone to go for it and seek it and have it, bar none -- and strongly so. And I would not want to be caught without it.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Tongues, as diggingfortruth noted, was said by Paul to be for all. He would not will for all to speak in tongues if all could not. And we know the GIFT is not for all, since it distinctly reads God gives severally as He wills. Not only that, but 1 Cor 14 places tongues as for prayer, and no one would be exempt from that opportunity. So there is a form of tongues apart from the gift due to these facts. It is true that the bible does not explicitly associate tongues with salvation. But it is evidence of Spirit baptism, and nothing else is ever noted to be INITIAL evidence as tongues is. I think there is discrepancy between receiving the Spirit into one's life and the baptism of the Spirit. As I said, that cannot be proved otherwise, nor proved for my case either. But due to what IS written, I believe Spirit Baptism is one and the same as receiving the Spirit, and is for POWER, to be sure, and necessary for Kingdom life. So basically I will not say someone is hellbound who has not spoken in tongues, since the Bible did not say that plainly, but I preach for everyone to go for it and seek it and have it, bar none -- and strongly so. And I would not want to be caught without it.

Isn't prophesying also a biblically noted evidence of spirit baptism?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Bro Blume (and anyone else), would you mind considering this line of thought
P.S. I don't think it's a matter of who's right, but rather a matter of edifying one another...(We all know in part, btw)

Originally Posted by TGBTG View Post
(From my little understanding of scriptures), I'll love for us take a look at a couple of scriptures and I'll love to see your intake of them..

Here goes.. (For full context, please read entire chapter prayerfully)

Acts 18
23 And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.

23And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples (I am of the opinion that disciples here refer to followers of Christ)

We see Paul travelling to places strengthening the disciples. The next time we hear of Paul is in chapter 19

Yes, Paul did do that. The Book of Acts correlates with the Epistles, so we do need to keep that in mind and that it was written over a period of years. It seems as though you are thinking the timeline is a day to day account, but as we see, it is not.

Acts 19
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (Note that the writer of Acts called these people Paul met disciples, which makes sense since Paul's mission on this journey was to strengthen the disciples.

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost

We know the rest of the story from there...they got rebaptized, hands laid on, and spoke in tongues.

That is an interesting perception at the outset, except that on further study, if they were already saved then why instruct them to have a further understanding of being baptized in His name and being filled with His Spirit? It was obviously very important to Paul to have them know and understand this. It is the same message Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost. Nothing is changing here.

A disciple is defined as a "pupil" and a "learner", which we all should be. I think that if Peter, Paul, etc., being called "disciples" as well, did not continue in the faith, they would not be saved in the end. So, I'm not sure calling anyone a "disciple" does anything but recognize we are on the path, having not already obtained, but pressing toward the mark.

As of the time Paul met these disciples, he figured they had believed on Christ, but perhaps not yet received the HGB. Hence he asked them that question. Now contrast this scenario with[

1 John 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God

My line of reasoning here it seems that the HGB from this account was to strenghten those who were christian already...

Pls, let me know your opinion

Well, just believing is a start, but the Word does also say:

Regarding baptism: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

Regarding repentance: "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3)

And regarding the Holy Ghost/Spirit: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:8)

A "gift" is not something that we could ever give ourselves. That is why the Holy Ghost is referred to as a "gift" and the "promise".

Peter identifies this "promise" and the evidence thereof in 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."

And please note that even though we cannot give ourselves this gift, Jesus "commanded" the Disciples/Apostles to "tarry" and "wait" in Jerusalem until they received it.

"And, 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." (Luke 24:49)

"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." (Acts 1:4)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Isn't prophesying also a biblically noted evidence of spirit baptism?

Not to the degree tongues is, when we consider everyone is meant to pray in tongues.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Isn't prophesying also a biblically noted evidence of spirit baptism?

I may have bought that line of reasoning except that when you study "gift", that gift is identified as tongues, as per, Acts 2:33, Acts 10:45 and Acts 11:17.

Acts 2:18 says that He would pour out His Spirit and then they would prophesy. Being that tongues is spoken of in the way it is, I would have to assume that is the initial evidence.

If Saul, who prophesied, was actually spirit filled, then why would Jesus need to die on the cross and resurrect so that He could send the Comforter? I believe Saul was moved on by the Holy Spirit, but certainly not Spirit filled.

In studying "gifts", as in, Romans 12:6, "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;", I find that 1 Corinthians 12:4, is saying there are diverse gifts being given from that one and self-same Spirit - "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit."

IMO, it implies a universal Spirit given to operate the others. It one and self-same spirit that allows us to operate, as the NT Church, in other areas - prophesy, tongues and interpretation, discerning of spirits, etc. (I Cor 12:8-10)

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not to the degree tongues is, when we consider everyone is meant to pray in tongues.

Have you seen the long list of scriptures where people being filled with the spirit was evidenced by prophesying I listed in my Prophesying Versus Speaking In Tongues thread?

1. On the day of Pentecost Peter said of what was going on... THIS IS THAT. This is that spoken of by the prophet Joel. Did Joel said your sons & daughters will speak in tongues? He didn't. He said your sons & daughters will prophesy. The people heard them, in their own tongue, tell the wonderful works of God. This is very similar to what we find Zacharias said when he began to prophesy (as a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit).

Since Joel said their sons & daughters would prophesy... and what the countrymen heard these men saying (in their own tongue) sounds similar to what Zacharias uttered as prophesy... and since Peter said this is that... Can't we find it hard to rule out that what these men heard (in their own tongue) was people prophesying?

It is clear that in Acts 19 there were 12 men who received the Holy Spirit and they spake in tongues and prophesied. What reason would we have to assume that all 12 spoke and tongues... and then all 12 prophesied? Can't we find it hard to rule out that when they were filled with the Holy Spirit some of them spoke in tongues and some of them prophesied?

In the OT there are examples where people were told that God's spirit would come upon them and when it did there would be a sign... they would prophesy.

There are 3 scriptures that show conversions where tongues were present and 2 of the 3 have possible connotations to prophesies while one of those 2 is definite.

The Bible is replete with examples of men prophesying as a result of being come upon or filled with the Holy Spirit.

[mfblume]

Speaking wonderful works of God in another language is tongues, not prophesying.

It is more sensational to speak in tongues as the speaker does not know what he is speaking.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Exactly.

Theres is alot of stories, analogies, and experiences being shared from those who favor initial evidence doctrine, but little to no scriptural support.

This is a previous post of mine on another thread in this forum. I've tried to show where people received a Holy Ghost Baptism experience in the New Testament and what happened when they did.


--Acts 2:1-4 tongues are mentioned when about 1/4 of the early church (120 out of 500 members ref 1 Corinthians 15:6) were baptized in the Spirit. Some believe this is when those 120 got saved or born again. Others believe they had already been saved or born again as disciples/followers of Jesus and this was an empowering/filling/baptizing experience in the Holy Spirit.

--Acts 8:5-25 winter AD 31/32 Philip went to Samaria and preached Christ. People believed (verse 12) were saved (received the Word verse 14) and were baptized (verses 15-16) but they had not received/been baptized in the Spirit. Peter and John made the the 40 mile trip from Jerusalem and laid their hands on them and ministered the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) to them. Verse 17 says they were laying their hands on them and they were receiving (making room for or opening up to) the Holy Spirit. It does not say they spoke with tongues but I think it is implied for two reasons:
1. Simeon saw something happen when they were baptized in the Spirit. He had seen healings, exorcisms, salvations, and great joy but this was something else. It COULD HAVE BEEN speaking with tongues.
2. When Simon tried to buy the gift of ministering the HGB, Peter said "To hell with you and your money. You thought you could buy the gift of God with money. You have no part nor lot in this utterance" (verses 18-21). The KJV says "matter" there but the same word is translated "utterance" in 1 Corinthians 1:5 where it is speaking about the gifts of the Spirit in the Corinthian churc.

--Acts 8:26-40 records the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch and his subsequent water baptism and the Spirit coming upon him. Again, no tongues is mentioned so we can't use this as an argument for or against tongues. You know the story. The eunuch was reading Isaiah chapter 53. Philip preached Christ from that scripture. They came to some water -probably the wadi el-Hesi north of Gaza and the eunuch requested baptism. Philip first wanted to be sure he was saved so he said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch made a confession of faith (like Romans 10:9-13) so Philip stopped the chariot so the man could be baptized. Note, that confession of faith is not in some versions of the Bible. Verses 38-40 in some manuscripts read: "So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord fell on the eunuch and the Angel of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea." Again, nothing proven about whether or not tongues happened.

--Acts 9:1-20 records the conversion of Saul. Traditional date for this is January 25, AD 32. Some of us believe that Saul was converted there on the road to Damascus when he realized Jesus was alive and he called Him Lord and asked what he should do. Three days later Ananias came to him on Straight street so that he could receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. We read that Ananias laid his hands on him and we assume that is when and where he did receive his sight and receive the Holy Ghost Baptism. Again, no word about tongues although we know that 30 some years later Paul told the Corinthian church that he spoke with tongues more than all of them.

--Acts 10, AD 38, Cornelius and others heard the Word, believed, and the Holy Spirit fell upon them. It is recorded that they spoke with tongues and that is how Peter and the rest of them knew that the Gentiles had been Spirit filled. Later, Peter referred to this tongues speaking experience as a baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16-17). Actually, Peter said that these Gentiles had received the same experience he and others had received even though there was no mention of wind or tongues of fire in Acts 10, 11.

--Acts 19:1-7, October AD 53, a group of Baptist disciples who had not heard about the Holy Ghost found out that there was more for them than what they had received. Paul explained what Jesus did, then baptized them in water, and then laid his hands upon them and the Spirit came upon them It is recorded that they spoke with tongues and prophesied. We don't know if all 12 did both --spoke with tongues and prophesied-- or if some spoke with tongues and some prophesied. But speaking with tongues is mentioned.

Agreed, this is not a lot of witnesses but, based on this, some of us have come to the following conclusions:
1. There is a definite experience known as
the Holy Ghost Baptism
receiving the Holy Spirit
the Spirit coming upon
the Spirit falling upon
2. This experience is subsequent to conversion
3. Speaking with tongues accompanies the experience

Others reading the same accounts may not come to the same conclusions. We need to respect one another's beliefs on this. I know good Christian people who do not speak with tongues.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Tongues, as diggingfortruth noted, was said by Paul to be for all. He would not will for all to speak in tongues if all could not. And we know the GIFT is not for all, since it distinctly reads God gives severally as He wills. Not only that, but 1 Cor 14 places tongues as for prayer, and no one would be exempt from that opportunity. So there is a form of tongues apart from the gift due to these facts. It is true that the bible does not explicitly associate tongues with salvation. But it is evidence of Spirit baptism, and nothing else is ever noted to be INITIAL evidence as tongues is. I think there is discrepancy between receiving the Spirit into one's life and the baptism of the Spirit. As I said, that cannot be proved otherwise, nor proved for my case either. But due to what IS written, I believe Spirit Baptism is one and the same as receiving the Spirit, and is for POWER, to be sure, and necessary for Kingdom life. So basically I will not say someone is hellbound who has not spoken in tongues, since the Bible did not say that plainly, but I preach for everyone to go for it and seek it and have it, bar none -- and strongly so. And I would not want to be caught without it.

My how you twist the scripture. Paul never said that tongues was for all anymore than he said prophesy was for all. The verse you reference is 1 Corinthians 14:5 where the context clearly reveals that he is speaking of the spiritual gift of tongues compared to the spiritual gift of prophecy. Both are gifts of the Spirit and are explicitly stated as not being for all. In fact, I've covered this single point with you more times than I can count and you still go back to it. What gives blume?

The fact is that Paul wished for all to speak with the gift of tongues even though all do not. The fact is that Paul wished for all to prophesy even though all do not.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Speaking wonderful works of God in another language is tongues, not prophesying.

It is more sensational to speak in tongues as the speaker does not know what he is speaking.

I know Apostolics who would disagree with you concerning the bolded.


Nevertheless, where I depart from my Apostolic upbringing is the conclusivity that speaking in tongues is THE ONLY MARKER that designates the begining of salvation.


There have been some great points brought up, but no one who believes the initial tongues doctrine can explain away the Phillipian jailer or the Ethiopian.


Please, MFBLUME address these two clear cases, when you have the time.

Furthermore, where are these "holes" that someone suggested was in the "one-stepper" doctrine?


I believe I can plug those "holes" using nothing but scripture in a way where the scriptures are presented clearly and without some unique interpretation that would require that one catch a "revelation" to understand.

After all, I am not sure in the likelihood of a fool catching any revelation, yet GOD gives hope even for the fool-- without understanding a "revelation."