The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

[renee819]

Jack wrote,

That grouping verses in Acts 10 doesn't state anything about salvation but just an outpouring of tongues. Verse 43 says that whosever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. So it's pretty clear to me that the tongues weren't a part of the salvation, but part of the workings of worship

.

Back to Pressing-on's example, which is a very good example. The whole of Acts 10 and 11 is all about salvation.

The angel told Cornelius to send for Paul, for what purpose?

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Until a person is 'born again' by repenting, being baptized in Jesus name, and receives the Holy Ghost, they do not have the “life” in them, which is the 'divine nature.”

Cornelius was a very good man, he would put a lot of Christians to shame, but he was not born again. The angel didn't tell him to send for Peter so that a group of people could experience the "outpouring of tongues. But that a group could be saved the very same way that "those that believe as the scriptures has said, " are being saved today.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jack Shephard

I wasn't meaning that tongues meant salvation to you, but I believe that most OP's believe the initial evidence thing so they equate tongues as being a sign of salvation.

His foundation ended with his call to salvation, verse 43. Verse 45 shows that Gentiles were astonished because of what they heard. They heard something familiar coming from an unfamiliar source, Gentiles. That still doesn't give a clear picture that the HG was salvation, but 43 saying whosoever believeth in him shall hall receive remission of sins - that is pretty clear there.

I am not sure if your last statement means that you believe Acts 2:38 is the Gospel or not.

Yes, I do believe the Gospel is Acts 2:38.

Why do I believe that?

Because, Paul in Galatians 1:15-18 says,

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.]"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Paul later goes on to preach in II Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

And in I Peter 4:17 "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

I believe that the Apostles so closely tied in the "Good News" to what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost that they made no distinction as we do today. How do you OBEY the death, burial and resurrection? You listen to what Peter preached and OBEY that. Therefore, it is the Gospel for me.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by renee819

Jack wrote,
.

Back to Pressing-on's example, which is a very good example. The whole of Acts 10 and 11 is all about salvation.

The angel told Cornelius to send for Paul, for what purpose?



Until a person is 'born again' by repenting, being baptized in Jesus name, and receives the Holy Ghost, they do not have the “life” in them, which is the 'divine nature.”

Cornelius was a very good man, he would put a lot of Christians to shame, but he was not born again. The angel didn't tell him to send for Peter so that a group of people could experience the "outpouring of tongues. But that a group could be saved the very same way that "those that believe as the scriptures has said, " are being saved today.

[houston]

Funny how PO is trying to make II Thes 1:8 fit with Gal 1:18.

Let's ignore the CONTEXT of Acts 10 where evidence of tongues was a sign to Peter confirming the vision to eat the unclean animals, signifying that God was going to save Gentiles. No, CONTEXT means nothing.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by houston

Funny how PO is trying to make II Thes 1:8 fit with Gal 1:18.

Let's ignore the CONTEXT of Acts 10 where evidence of tongues was a sign to Peter confirming the vision to eat the unclean animals, signifying that God was going to save Gentiles. No, CONTEXT means nothing.

Why would you want to overlook that what Peter preached in Acts 2 was evident in Acts 10? Why would you want to overlook that Peter and those with him, "of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues,"

Why is the confirmation of the vision the only thing you can see here? I can see both. Did you think that Peter was wasting his breath in Acts 2?

And what do you think Paul and Peter talked about for 15 days? Do you think that Peter ever related the events in the upper room to Paul during that 15 day period?

[houston]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Why would you want to overlook that what Peter preached in Acts 2 was evident in Acts 10? Why would you want to overlook that Peter and those with him, "of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues,"

Why is the confirmation of the vision the only thing you can see here? I can see both. Did you think that Peter was wasting his breath in Acts 2?

And what do you think Paul and Peter talked about for 15 days? Do you think that Peter ever related the events in the upper room to Paul during that 15 day period?

JEWS were ASTONISHED because GENTILES were getting saved. Tongues was a sign to the UNBELIEVING Jews. They were no longer the cream of the crop and God confirmed it to them.

THAT is why there was the evidence of tongues. Do I need to draw a picture in crayola's for you?

What Peter and Paul discussed is not relevant as it is not recorded in scripture.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by houston

JEWS were ASTONISHED because GENTILES were getting saved. Tongues was a sign to the UNBELIEVING Jews. They were no longer the cream of the crop and God confirmed it to them.

THAT is why there was the evidence of tongues. Do I need to draw a picture in crayola's for you?

What Peter and Paul discussed is not relevant as it is not recorded in scripture.

Yes, please draw a crayola picture. I have no idea what it would look like and I want to see it!

Well, I am glad you realized that the Gentiles were getting saved. What if they had not spoken in tongues at all? Would the Jews have realized they were being saved?

What was tongues a sign for concerning the Jews in the upper room on the day of Pentecost?

Here, I finished a drawing of you. I put it on your shirt. You don't have to thank me.

[houston]

There are no "what if's." Please stick to the text.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by houston

There are no "what if's." Please stick to the text.

So, you can't or won't answer the question.

You could at least answer my third question. That is sticking to the text.

Okay, where is my crayola drawing?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I looked at your crayola art and simply had to do something to it. I saved the pic, ran some of my Photoshop magic using a few proprietary plug ins and. . . .








Here ya go!