Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Jesus also said EXCEPT a man is born of the Spirit he CANNOT enter the kingom of God, so receiving the Holy Ghost is indeed a must also.

In John 3:5 Jesus was speaking figuratively. In fact Jesus spoke so figuratively that Nicodemus had no clue what Jesus was talking about. In Mark 16:16 Jesus was speaking explicitly. If a figurative passage is ever interpreted in such a way that it contradicts an explicit passage then that interpretation of the figurative passage is wrong. Therefore John 3:5 cannot be interpreted to mean that receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is required for salvation or else John 3:5 would contradict what we just learned from the explicit passage of Mark 16:16.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by jfrog

In John 3:5 Jesus was speaking figuratively. In fact Jesus spoke so figuratively that Nicodemus had no clue what Jesus was talking about. In Mark 16:16 Jesus was speaking explicitly. If a figurative passage is ever interpreted in such a way that it contradicts an explicit passage then that interpretation of the figurative passage is wrong. Therefore John 3:5 cannot be interpreted to mean that receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is required for salvation or else John 3:5 would contradict what we just learned from the explicit passage of Mark 16:16.

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

[Sam]

Originally Posted by jfrog

No we cannot say the same thing about receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues as I did with repentance. In fact, that was the entire point. We all know someone that believes and was baptized but never received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Jesus said that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. So since there exists people who Jesus said were saved that have not received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues then we must conclude that Jesus was right and those people who have not received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues are saved.

Jesus also said that one of the signs that follows believers is that "they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" but I think many of us know folks who have had hands placed on them but they have not recovered.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Yep, the OT tabernacle plan was an excellent shadow of NT salvation of repentence, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost.

Take the OT tabernacle shadow of baptism for example as to how very important it was -

Exodus 30:20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not....

Who washed with water?
How long before the washing were they born into the priestly family?
Could they have been washed if they had not already been born into the family?
Did the washing take the place of circumcision?
How often did they wash?
Did they get into the water and get dunked in it or just wash with it?
Was the blood and oil applied before, after, or when washing?
How far can we go along with types and shadows and how much doctrine can we build on them?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by BroGary

The thing is that the Holy Ghost was not even available for people to receive until the day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was first poured out, so the Acts 2:38 plan of salvation could not be fully obeyed until from the day of Pentecost onward, but from that day forward, the day the NT church was born, it was required.

When were the disciples saved?
When were they born again?
Were any of the disciples included among those that Jesus and others knew who were already born again when He talked to Nicodemus? (John 3:11)
When and by whom were they baptized in water?
Were they unsaved when they went out preaching and healing in Jesus' name and were told that their names were written in Heaven like in Luke 10:20?
Were they clean or not when Jesus told them that they were already clean in John 13:10?

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by Sam

Jesus also said that one of the signs that follows believers is that "they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" but I think many of us know folks who have had hands placed on them but they have not recovered.

It still requires faith on the part of the receipent.

Even Jesus Himself could not heal people who had unbelief.

Matthew 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by Sam

When were the disciples saved?
When were they born again?
Were any of the disciples included among those that Jesus and others knew who were already born again when He talked to Nicodemus? (John 3:11)
When and by whom were they baptized in water?
Were they unsaved when they went out preaching and healing in Jesus' name and were told that their names were written in Heaven like in Luke 10:20?
Were they clean or not when Jesus told them that they were already clean in John 13:10?

People could not be born again according to the NT plan of salvation until the Holy Ghost was first poured out on the day of Pentecost.

When Jesus was talking of being born of water and of the Spirit He had to be referring to what would be required AFTER the Spirit was available because people could not be born of the Spirit until the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was first poured out and the NT church was born.

[jfrog]

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.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

I wanted to add one thing. What sins was Peter telling those men gathered on the day of Pentecost to repent of? There wasn't one sin he told them to repent of that day. In fact, its even possible that some of them were living a good life and had no sin to actually repent of at the time. What I am trying to say is that in the context of Acts 2, the command to repent doesn't have anything to do with sin but instead with turning toward Jesus by believing on him.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I wanted to add one thing. What sins was Peter telling those men gathered on the day of Pentecost to repent of? There wasn't one sin he told them to repent of that day. In fact, its even possible that some of them were living a good life and had no sin to actually repent of at the time. What I am trying to say is that in the context of Acts 2, the command to repent doesn't have anything to do with sin but instead with turning toward Jesus by believing on him.

They had to repent of causing Christ's crucifixion, like all of us, only they directly caused it in a way we did not. But in general all who are lost have crucified the Lord since He died for our sins.

Acts 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Acts 2:36-38 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.