Why Imply No Tongues = No Salvation?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Deacon I have always wondered about John 20:22-23

22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

They had the Holy Spirit even before the upper-room.

Yes, and I was taught and always argued that John 7 says the "the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified." So He was commanding them to receive it in John 20, not imparting it. That's the old argument.

The question is this, "when was Jesus glorified?" OPs say at His ascension in Acts 1. I say He ascended before Acts 1, after the resurrection. Earlier in John 20 He says to Mary Magdalene "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Then later in the chapter He appears and breathes on the them and says "Recieve ye the Holy Spirit". Then a little later in the chapter He tells Thomas to touch His wounds. If Mary couldn't touch Him because He had not yet ascended, yet He tells Thomas to touch Him before Acts 1, then it's safe to deduce that Jesus ascended to heaven first somewhere between the resurrection and appearing to Thomas. And since John 7 says the Spirit was not given because Jesus wasn't glorified, I believe when Jesus breathed on them, they were given the Spirit, because He had been glorified.

So I think the old argument is flawed. The argument that He breathed on them and commanded them to receive the Spirit that wasn't fulfilled until Acts 2.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Yes, and I was taught and always argued that John 7 says the "the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified." So He was commanding them to receive it in John 20, not imparting it. That's the old argument.

The question is this, "when was Jesus glorified?" OPs say at His ascension in Acts 1. I say He ascended before Acts 1, after the resurrection. Earlier in John 20 He says to Mary Magdalene "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Then later in the chapter He appears and breathes on the them and says "Recieve ye the Holy Spirit". Then a little later in the chapter He tells Thomas to touch His wounds. If Mary couldn't touch Him because He had not yet ascended, yet He tells Thomas to touch Him before Acts 1, then it's safe to deduce that Jesus ascended to heaven first somewhere between the resurrection and appearing to Thomas. And since John 7 says the Spirit was not given because Jesus wasn't glorified, I believe when Jesus breathed on them, they were given the Spirit, because He had been glorified.

So I think the old argument is flawed. The argument that He breathed on them and commanded them to receive the Spirit that wasn't fulfilled until Acts 2.

Thank you Deacon! You challenge me to dig deeper into the Word.

[tv1a]

Apostolic is a subjective term. I'm sure my church fits someone's definition of apostolic.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

And are you going to an Apostolic church?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

If we keep this up we will return this back to an "Apostolic" forum.

The Apostolics which suddenly appeared in 1913? Or this one which is several hundred years older....

"The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Orthodox Church of Jesus Christ, against which he promised the gates of hell would not prevail. Specifically, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is the creedal form of belief in the Church. What is implied in that belief are commonly called the marks of the Church: unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity."

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

We believe the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is the new birth.

Others believe differently.

1Pe 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Others believe differently.

1Pe 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

Others are wrong.

[Bro. Robbins]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Recently, I went back to visit my former Pastor's church for Wed night service. I loved being there and loved listening to his teaching. I felt at home, and there was no pressure from people asking a whole bunch of questions. It seemed like this was where I belonged.


I can explain away, look the other way, agree to disagree with most of my objections with the doctrines of the American 21st century Apostolic churches I've had the privilege of being a member of.


However, I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting that the Bible teaches that one MUST speak in tongues in order to be saved, or to show proof that one is saved.


I find this idea simply unbiblical. I am thinking about going back to visit this Sunday morning. Part of me thinks I am setting myself up for failure and pain again, as it was a personally agonizing decision to leave in the first place.


I miss my former Pastor and my former church.

But why should I even go back to visit when I already know the deal with these precious people and their doctrine?

This thread is pointless. Been down this road mentally how many times? But I sure do miss my former Pastor.


Why do Apostolics teach that a Christian must speak in tongues in the course of one's salvation?

Brother.. not to be too technical, but your painting with some broad brushes here, and using some terms technically out of place.

Technically, you aren't really SAVED right now. By FAITH you are, but you won't truly be saved until you enter into enternity, at this point, it's being "saved" by faith.

Also, I've never heard anyone teach that you have to speak in tongues to be "saved". I have heard them teach that you MUST BE BORN AGAIN to be saved, and that is what Jesu even said in John 3.

Then one must ask, what does "born again" mean. Jesus stated it was being born of the water and the spirit.

When taking the New Testament account of Jesus life, and the birth of the church at Pentecost, I believe being born again truly is what Peter taught in Acts 2:38. Repentence is essential.... if there is not a change in that respect, baptism, shouting, whatever is all flesh.

I then believe that the Born Again process is baptism in Jesus name for the remission of sins.

I also believe, as Peter stated, it is receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. In my opinion brother, there is just too much Bible to believe that anyone can receive the Holy Ghost without the initial evidence of Speaking in Tongues.

I do believe in the doctrine of IE, but would never phrase it as "someone has to speak in tongues to be saved." It misrepresents the doctrine and the Born Again experience.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Bro. Robbins

I do believe in the doctrine of IE, but would never phrase it as "someone has to speak in tongues to be saved." It misrepresents the doctrine and the Born Again experience.

It presents the doctrine for what it amounts to.

I want to thank everyone for their thoughts, prayers, and input. I so sincerely do appreciate them.

This matter is settled.
HALLELUJAH!

[tv1a]

So when are you going back?

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It presents the doctrine for what it amounts to.

I want to thank everyone for their thoughts, prayers, and input. I so sincerely do appreciate them.

This matter is settled.
HALLELUJAH!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Yes, and I was taught and always argued that John 7 says the "the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified." So He was commanding them to receive it in John 20, not imparting it. That's the old argument.

The question is this, "when was Jesus glorified?" OPs say at His ascension in Acts 1. I say He ascended before Acts 1, after the resurrection. Earlier in John 20 He says to Mary Magdalene "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Then later in the chapter He appears and breathes on the them and says "Recieve ye the Holy Spirit". Then a little later in the chapter He tells Thomas to touch His wounds. If Mary couldn't touch Him because He had not yet ascended, yet He tells Thomas to touch Him before Acts 1, then it's safe to deduce that Jesus ascended to heaven first somewhere between the resurrection and appearing to Thomas. And since John 7 says the Spirit was not given because Jesus wasn't glorified, I believe when Jesus breathed on them, they were given the Spirit, because He had been glorified.

So I think the old argument is flawed. The argument that He breathed on them and commanded them to receive the Spirit that wasn't fulfilled until Acts 2.

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the [a]Helper will not come to you..." (John 16.7).

Had Jesus "gone away" here: "So Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, I also am sending you.' Having said this, he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. Whoever’s sins you forgive, they stand forgiven; whoever’s sins you pronounce unforgiven, they remain unforgiven'." (John 20:21-23).

The above passage is simply John's account of the great commission as a parallel comparison of Luke 24 & Mt. 28 will immediately reveal. Not Him actually filling them with the baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to the time He had "gone away."

Just a few days later (i.e., after this event) He told them: "for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now....But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:5-8).

Clearly Jesus had not taken the HS from them during the time spanning John 20 & Acts 1, nor did He have to "re-fill" them with the HS !