E
The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, were saved and a part of the body of Christ before water baptism. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid them from being baptized because of their unacceptance of these Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. Praise God!![]()
There has been a lot of controversy surrounding Born Again Speaking in Tongues and I hope this will clarify a few things...
Receiving the Holy Ghost as they did in the book of Acts, we need to repent, find a church that baptizes full immersion into the water having the NAME of Jesus pronounced over us, and be filled with the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues.
Note, receiving the Holy Ghost can be before or after water baptism but never before repentance.
Once again, This thread is NOT ABOUT TONGUES? it is about the FALSE GOSPEL of SALVATION by water baptism and speaking in tongues. So continueing to support this tongues aspect is in reality defending this position that we are saved by these works. Which supposedly the people defending it claim to reject.. Yet how can anyone believe it when they CONTINUE to defend it?
Some people can not get out of their own way to realize this.
I am laughing at the people defending it. Thus defending the gospel the op is trying to preach.EG I see what you are arguing, however according to the OP tongues as part of salvation, (not everyone here), one has to look at modern day languages (aka "tongues"...... the antiquated word for languages, not to be confused with the physical tongue)
So the underlying premise that modern day unintelligible speech is even related to what happened in Acts is key......
Paul was not writing about the manifestation of "cloven tongues" like in Acts he is writing about languages as a non miraculous gift like "helps" and 'governments"
So there is no way around discussing "languages"
GOSPEL of SALVATION by water baptism and speaking in tongues.
If "glossolalia" is evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit it has to be addressed first actually.
No it isn't. There isn't a shred of evidence for that interpretation anywhere in Scripture. The gift of "speaking in tongues" (PLURAL, I might add!), is the Spirit-given ability to speak in a language (one or more) that the speaker has not naturally learned.The new tongue is the gospel.
Where is the evidence that Cornelius went out and made disciples? Nowhere; yet he spoke in tongues.No difference than saying they have believed and are equipped to go out and make disciples of men with the gospel . It the new tongue (gospel) that can drive out demons . . . .the kind the disciples could not drive out.
There isn't only one sign. There are many. They are not metaphors; they are actual signs.It is one of the many metaphors as "one sign" made up of many that follows those who do believe.
Your mockery is just silly and only reflects on you.it is Not today; I will drink poison as one sign sought after, and tomorrow I will make noises without understanding .and the next day I will seek after another sign.... a walk in the cemetery and raise the dead and the next day heal a room full in the local hospital .
So you think the gospel is merely making noise without understanding? Wow. That is clear evidence of your error.Again its the new tongue called gospel that can .Making noise without understanding. The demons are used to that .It ould not cast out any thing other than silence.
I am laughing at the people defending it. Thus defending the gospel the op is trying to preach.
And I am not sure I agree.. His premise is that tongues and water baptism are required. All that needs argued is the fact neither of those things are true.
I do not need to argue against tongues or water baptism to prove those things are not required.
I am laughing at the people defending it. Thus defending the gospel the op is trying to preach.
And I am not sure I agree.. His premise is that tongues and water baptism are required. All that needs argued is the fact neither of those things are true.
I do not need to argue against tongues or water baptism to prove those things are not required.
I would just call it what it is. A false gospel in any day. In fact all you have to do is prove water baptism is false and you have him there a lot less confrontational than tonguesWell maybe, but if modern day tongues/glossolalia are not a mainifestation of the Holy Spirit his whole argument is moot..... I think the only what to tackle this is to understand Paul's instruction to the church at Corinth.
I would just call it what it is. A false gospel in any day. In fact all you have to do is prove water baptism is false and you have him there a lot less confrontational than tongues
I am not so sure why tongues is so hotly debated. It’s crazyWell that is true!!![]()
I am not so sure why tongues is so hotly debated.
Well that’s a movements issue not soI think perhaps because many people either want and/or believe 'modern tongues' to be something that it is simply not.
I am not so sure why tongues is so hotly debated. It’s crazy
No it isn't. There isn't a shred of evidence for that interpretation anywhere in Scripture. The gift of "speaking in tongues" (PLURAL, I might add!), is the Spirit-given ability to speak in a language (one or more) that the speaker has not naturally learned.
Where is the evidence that Cornelius went out and made disciples? Nowhere; yet he spoke in tongues
There isn't only one sign. There are many. They are not metaphors; they are actual signs.
Your mockery is just silly and only reflects on you.
Adding to Scripture again?Maybe he spoke the word of God the tongue of God into the air to hear himself. . . a rehearsal in front of the mirror ? What do you think ?