tongues

[Tractster]

Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by New In Christ:
Question for MEE:

MEE, do you hold the opinion that one must speak in tongues to be saved? Some of your posts really imply that; however, other times I can't tell.

NIC, yes I do believe that a person has to be born of the Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues. It's not my opinion, it is scripture.

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.

Acts 2:16-17) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:....

Acts 2:39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

He's still calling!

..and people will respond until His return.

MEE

</font>[/QUOTE]Sounds like you're...

Apostolic, UPC, Oneness (Jesus-only).

Am I correct?

Roscoe

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by New In Christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:

NIC, yes I do believe that a person has to be born of the Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues. It's not my opinion, it is scripture.

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.

Acts 2:16-17) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:....

Acts 2:39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Thank you, MEE, for your response. But to be clear, you are saying not only that tongues are for today, but they are necessary for salvation. Correct?

In other words, if a person responds to a Gospel message and asks the Lord for forgiveness of sin and trusts Him for salvation, but dies in a car wreck on the way home from church, before ever speaking in tongues, that person will go to hell. Is this what you are saying?

Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]NIC, I didn't say it, the Bible does. Why do I get the feeling that you've been down this road before now?

As far as the person in the car wreck, that would depend on the age and the knowledge of the person. We serve a "JUST GOD."

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
I didn't say it, the Bible does. Why do I get the feeling that you've been down this road before now?

As far as the person in the car wreck, that would depend on the age and the knowledge of the person. We serve a "JUST GOD."

MEE

That is where you are wrong. The Bible doesn't say it. Take away the Book of Acts, a transitional book of history (not a book of doctrine), and you can't find your doctrine of salvation by tongues taught anywhere in Scripture. I have offered that challenge to you before MEE. It has always gone unanswered, or deliberated been evaded. Demonstrate to me that tongues is needed for one to be saved without using the Book of Acts.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
I didn't say it, the Bible does. Why do I get the feeling that you've been down this road before now?

As far as the person in the car wreck, that would depend on the age and the knowledge of the person. We serve a "JUST GOD."

MEE

That is where you are wrong. The Bible doesn't say it. Take away the Book of Acts, a transitional book of history (not a book of doctrine), and you can't find your doctrine of salvation by tongues taught anywhere in Scripture. I have offered that challenge to you before MEE. It has always gone unanswered, or deliberated been evaded. Demonstrate to me that tongues is needed for one to be saved without using the Book of Acts.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK, yes you are correct! I do sometimes evade you, but not on this subject. I have answered you, you are the one that doesn't see the 'word' for what it says.

Answer me one question! What book, of the Bible, does it show one where the NT church was born, in the biginning, for the very first time?

Really you don't have to look it up, just look at my last post to NIC!

MEE

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Tractster:

Apostolic, UPC, Oneness (Jesus-only).

Am I correct?

Roscoe [/QB]

Jesus only...NO! UPC...NO!...Apostolic Oneness...Yes! Don't you believe in "One God" also?

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
I didn't say it, the Bible does. Why do I get the feeling that you've been down this road before now?

As far as the person in the car wreck, that would depend on the age and the knowledge of the person. We serve a "JUST GOD."

MEE

That is where you are wrong. The Bible doesn't say it. Take away the Book of Acts, a transitional book of history (not a book of doctrine), and you can't find your doctrine of salvation by tongues taught anywhere in Scripture. I have offered that challenge to you before MEE. It has always gone unanswered, or deliberated been evaded. Demonstrate to me that tongues is needed for one to be saved without using the Book of Acts.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK, yes you are correct! I do sometimes evade you, but not on this subject. I have answered you, you are the one that doesn't see the 'word' for what it says.

Answer me one question! What book, of the Bible, does it show one where the NT church was born, in the biginning, for the very first time?
</font>[/QUOTE]Answering a question with another question is no answer at all. As you admit you evade questions, even on this subject. I will challenge you again. Demonstrate through Scripture, other than the Book of Acts, that salvation is necessary to salvation.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by MEE:

DHK, yes you are correct! I do sometimes evade you, but not on this subject. I have answered you, you are the one that doesn't see the 'word' for what it says.

Answer me one question! What book, of the Bible, does it show one where the NT church was born, in the biginning, for the very first time?

Answering a question with another question is no answer at all. As you admit you evade questions, even on this subject. I will challenge you again. Demonstrate through Scripture, other than the Book of Acts, that salvation is necessary to salvation.
DHK [/QB][/QUOTE]

**I didn't answer your question with a question. I told you to go back and read the post to NIC. If that was too much to ask...here read it!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by New In Christ:
Question for MEE:

MEE, do you hold the opinion that one must speak in tongues to be saved? Some of your posts really imply that; however, other times I can't tell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIC, yes I do believe that a person has to be born of the Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues. It's not my opinion, it is scripture.

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.

Acts 2:16-17) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:....

Acts 2:39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

He's still calling! ..and people will respond until His return.

MEE

**BTW, why do you want to avoid the book of the Acts of the apostles? This is where the NT chruch was birthed. You just can't tear out these pages or any other book that mentions tongues or water baptism!

The churches were set up in the book of Acts. After that anything that was written was for the churches that were set up in the book of Acts.

Paul, or anyone else, never changed the requirments for salvation. Hint: Acts 2:38, in order to get into the Bride of Christ. Then, you can apply the rest of the NT scriptures.

Galatians 1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

DHK, you may see things your way, but don't call me "wrong." OK?

MEE

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Bob and or Ed, If you believe what you say then please give an alternate meaning to what the verses I mentioned before say. If you can't offer good sound Biblical interpretation for those scriptures then you have no argument.

I read back a few posts for something of yours that makes some kind of challenge based on a text - I did not find one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:

**I didn't answer your question with a question. I told you to go back and read the post to NIC. If that was too much to ask...here read it!

quote:

I read your answer. You still have not answered my question or challenge. Your answer consisted of verses almost entirely from the Book of Acts. I asked if you could present the plan of salvation without using the Book of Acts. Apparently you cannot do that. Can you show that tongues is necessary for salvation outside the Book of Acts? Apparently you cannot do that. Without giving such evidence, then I would say that your belief is not truth but heresy. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9), not by works (tongues). Salvation through tongues is a heresy. It is salvation by works.
DHK

 

[New In Christ]

Originally posted by MEE:

NIC, I didn't say it, the Bible does. Why do I get the feeling that you've been down this road before now?

Thank you, MEE. No, I have not been down this road before, albeit, it is an interesting speculation! Though I spent most of my life in Charismatic or pentecostal-ish churches, I have never believed, nor have the churches I attended taught, that tongues was required for salvation.

I do think the book of Acts, albeit historical, can be used to "flesh out" doctrine. Whether an Apostle's teaching is recorded by Luke in Acts or an Apostle's teaching is recorded in a more doctrinally-oriented book, it is still holy writ. Nevertheless, I do not agree that the verses you cite teach salvation requires tongues.

That being said, I don't wish to fight with you over it. I was just trying to clarify in my own mind where you stood.

Thank you, again.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by New In Christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:

NIC, I didn't say it, the Bible does. Why do I get the feeling that you've been down this road before now?

Thank you, MEE. No, I have not been down this road before, albeit, it is an interesting speculation! Though I spent most of my life in Charismatic or pentecostal-ish churches, I have never believed, nor have the churches I attended taught, that tongues was required for salvation.

I do think the book of Acts, albeit historical, can be used to "flesh out" doctrine. Whether an Apostle's teaching is recorded by Luke in Acts or an Apostle's teaching is recorded in a more doctrinally-oriented book, it is still holy writ. Nevertheless, I do not agree that the verses you cite teach salvation requires tongues.

That being said, I don't wish to fight with you over it. I was just trying to clarify in my own mind where you stood.

Thank you, again. </font>[/QUOTE]NIC, sorry if you thought that I was wanting to "fight" over the gospel. I was just trying to answer your question. The reason I asked you if you had been down this road before, is the analogy that you used about the repented person and the car wreck. It is used quite often.

Sorry that you don't agree with my answer, but you did ask.

MEE

 

[New In Christ]

Posted by MEE:

NIC, sorry if you thought that I was wanting to "fight" over the gospel. I was just trying to answer your question. The reason I asked you if you had been down this road before, is the analogy that you used about the repented person and the car wreck. It is used quite often.

No, I didn't think you were trying to fight! I only said that to assure you that *I* wasn't trying to fight! I did not detect any animosity in your tone. You were very direct and gracious.

Sorry that you don't agree with my answer, but you did ask.

Absolutely! And, I appreciate your answers.

I thank you for your responses

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by New In Christ:

No, I didn't think you were trying to fight! I only said that to assure you that *I* wasn't trying to fight! I did not detect any animosity in your tone. You were very direct and gracious.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Sorry that you don't agree with my answer, but you did ask.

Absolutely! And, I appreciate your answers.

I thank you for your responses [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Gee NIC, you sound like such a nice person. Hope you stick around.

MEE

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Reply...

So, the thief on the cross was not 'saved'? He was neither Water Baptized or Spirit Baptized.

Yet, Jesus promised him that that very day he would be in Paradise.

While I believe strongly that Speaking in Tongues is for today.

I would like to see the doctrinal development of 'proofs' that being Baptized in the Spirit with evidence of Speaking in other tongues is a pre-requisite for Salvation.

Remember that, I believe it was, the Ephesians had believed but were not yet filled with the Spirit.

While considered very important they were never told they weren't 'believers'.

Ephesians 2:8-9 states

for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory.

No mention of tongues here.

Romans 10:8-11 states

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach: because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame.

Again, no pre-requisite of Tongues, here, either.

To connect the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the work of the Spirit as Comforter and Paraclete is a dangerous connection to make.

First, even among 'seekers' not everyone gets filled in a timely manner. This generates fear, condemnation, desperation, and a tendency to give up on God as unobtainable.

(It is just such absoluteness in presentation that, IMHO, was responsible for a young mans suicide this past Friday. New convert... Wrong church! Too, unspiritual to access the pastors help? He was fighting depression.)

It would seem to me that a God who has gone to such great lengths to include even the Gentiles in His plan of salvation would make speaking in Tongues much more readily accessible if it were a pre-condition for salvation.

Secondly, a review of the 'whole council of God' as revealed in His Written Word indicates that not everyone spoke in Tongues who were considered 'saved'.

Again, I would like to see the entire Scriptural record upon which this teaching was developed and continues to be taught.

Specifically, I would like to see a direct link between the Spirits work in drawing men unto the Father and Speaking in Tongues.

I am sure that if it exists the radicals of my own denomination would have incorporated it into the 16 Fundamental Truths we Assemblies of God People adhere to.

But, as it is, our Constitution and Bylaws specifically denounce any connection of Speaking in Tongues as a pre-requisite for Salvation.

Sorry, Mee, as much as I hate to do so... I have to side with Briguy and DHK on this one.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:

While I believe strongly that Speaking in Tongues is for today.

**SMM, when you spoke in tongues, for the first time, were you praying for the baptism of the Holy Ghost or the gift of tongues?

Sorry, Mee, as much as I hate to do so... I have to side with Briguy and DHK on this one. [/QB]

**Well SMM, if that be the case, Briguy doesn't believe that people speak in tongues today. He believes that tongues has already ceased. As far as DHK goes, he says that speaking in tongues is not of God. Now, that is not quite the way he puts it sometimes, but I won't type what he says about the Spirit of God, on the forum.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
Well SMM, if that be the case, Briguy doesn't believe that people speak in tongues today. He believes that tongues has already ceased. As far as DHK goes, he says that speaking in tongues is not of God. Now, that is not quite the way he puts it sometimes, but I won't type what he says about the Spirit of God, on the forum.
MEE

It is good not to type without exact quotations, and it is good not to make false accusations or derogatory remarks either. Baiscally I hold a very similar view to Briguy, that tongues have ceased. Tongues were a gift from God, used by the Holy Spirit of God in the first century. I believe that even Briguy will agree with me that if they ceased by the end of the first century that what is going on in the name of tongues today is not of God. What was of God ceased by the end of first century. We believe in the same thing. If tongues is for today it is of God; if it isn't for today, it is not of God. It is that simple.

Concerning the Holy Spirit of God, you can correct me if I am wrong, but did you hold the same position as Oneness did? You seemed to support him in much of what he said. If so, then it is you that have a lot of explaining to do on your position of the Holy Spirit, for Onenes did not believe in the trinity. Do you? Do you believe in the triune Godhead: three persons in one God?

What do you think I believe on the Holy Spirit that you might be afraid to type? I am interested now in hearing this.
DHK

 

[GrannyGumbo]

So much reading to do{sigh}...but I will get it done, as it helps me a whole lot in my daily battle with the "onenesses" & other 'tongue-talkers' around here.

Wanna know what's happened to my son, Patrick, in the year I've been gone? (The one who was seduced by satan into false doctrine & it has costed him dearly).

He's so far gone now, I just don't see any hope of him ever coming outta that mess! The Lord has been severely dealing with him, but he continues to ignore it.

The Bishop Couch who heads up the monstrous Tab over behind me, continues to bring in more folks-I reckon to help pay for it?

He said he'd completely take over this community & it sure looks like he's well on his way.[to Hell]

Well, enjoy your postings...just wanted to drop by & say howdy. Howdy!

 

[DHK]

Hi Granny,
Glad to see you posting again. It's been a long time since we've last seen you on the board.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
Well SMM, if that be the case, Briguy doesn't believe that people speak in tongues today. He believes that tongues has already ceased. As far as DHK goes, he says that speaking in tongues is not of God. Now, that is not quite the way he puts it sometimes, but I won't type what he says about the Spirit of God, on the forum.
MEE

It is good not to type without exact quotations, and it is good not to make false accusations or derogatory remarks either. Baiscally I hold a very similar view to Briguy, that tongues have ceased. Tongues were a gift from God, used by the Holy Spirit of God in the first century. I believe that even Briguy will agree with me that if they ceased by the end of the first century that what is going on in the name of tongues today is not of God. What was of God ceased by the end of first century. We believe in the same thing. If tongues is for today it is of God; if it isn't for today, it is not of God. It is that simple.

DHK </font>[/QUOTE]OK DHK, you fill in what you say about "tongues" of today! If you say "they are not of God," then where do you say they come from?

Also, you say, "if" tongues is for today and "if" it isn't for today, it is not of God." Your "if's" sounds as though there is a little doubt, IMO.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
OK DHK, you fill in what you say about "tongues" of today! If you say "they are not of God," then where do you say they come from?

You should be able to fill in that blank for yourself. In the realm of spiritual things that answer is fairly clear. Let's look at some examples:
If Mohammed is not sent from God, then who is he sent from?
If the teachings of Buddha are not inspired of God, then who are they inspired of?
Getting closer to home now, if the doctrine of purgatory is not a doctrine from God, then from what is it a doctrine of?
If baptismal regeneration is not of God, then what is it of?
If salvation by tongues is not of God, then what is it of?
If tongues is not of God, then what is it of?

The answer, of course is the same in each case. If it is not of God, it is of the devil. All false doctrine is of the devil, and the Bible commands us to have nothing to do with it. Our measuring stick is the Word of God. You cannot demonstrate to a single individual (not even to those that believe in tongues) that tongues is necessary for salvation. This is a false doctrine--the Bible itself would call it a damnable heresy. It comes from the pit of Hell, originating from Satan himself. It denies the very grace of God, and does away with salvation through grace by faith.

If baptism and tongues are necessary for salvation, then why did Christ even spend the time dying on the cross? All you need to do is speak in tongues and be baptized. You have a religion of works, not of grace. You can't have both.
Either salvation is of grace or of works. For you it of works--tongues. Therefore Christ's death and resurrection was in vain.

Understand this verse clearly:
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Salvation is either of grace or works. It is not both. Your salvation is of works. Tongues is a work. Put in that context it goes entirely against the direct teaching of the Bible, and thus it is of the devil. Plain and simple, isn't it?
DHK