do any of you believe tongues are necessary

[ARBITER01]

Oz

We are talking about mark 16 9-20 are we not?

Show me where water is mentioned in those passage to denote the immersion as being about water please.

 

[OzSpen]

We are talking about mark 16 9-20 are we not?

Show me where water is mentioned in those passage to denote the immersion as being about water please.

Here you are with your diversionary tactics again. We were talking about baptism.

Oz

 

[ARBITER01]

Here you are with your diversionary tactics again. We were talking about baptism.

Oz

I brought you back to mark 16:9-20, you went off into acts.

You are aware that the word "baptism" is not a translated word, aren't you? It means immersion, cleansing, dipping in the greek.

If there is nothing in the context of mark 16:9-20 about water, we don't automatically assume that it was talking about water, like you are doing.

So is there anything in those passages of mark spelling out water for us, or are you going to continue to assume it means that?

 

[JEBrady]

So it's a matter of interpretation. Do you believe it means water baptism in the name of the Lord or do you believe it means being placed into the body of Christ?

Two different sides of the fence.

 

[ARBITER01]

So it's a matter of interpretation. Do you believe it means water baptism in the name of the Lord or do you believe it means being placed into the body of Christ?

Two different sides of the fence.

Exactly Brady, that's the whole point I'm trying to make, thank you!

Like I posted before,..

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all immersed into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

The immersion described by Jesus in Mark would be Spiritual unless there was context to denote it being of water, we don't just assume it means water. That's the dangers of using a transliterated word in bibles, instead of actually translating the word.

 

[OzSpen]

You are aware that the word "baptism" is not a translated word, aren't you? It means immersion, cleansing, dipping in the greek.

Are you aware that Jesus Christ is not a translated, but a transliterated word? Will you stop using Jesus Christ?

Oz

 

[ARBITER01]

Are you aware that Jesus Christ is not a translated, but a transliterated word? Will you stop using Jesus Christ?

Oz

Are you deflecting now, and refusing to address the situation?

 

[papaJP]

Must you speak in tongues to be saved?

_________________++++++++++++++++++++++++__________________

The answer to this question is no. The discussion should continue on what must you do to follow Jesus and become more like Him.
Baptism, Salvation, and then the walk towards becoming like Jesus.
It is impossible without the Holy Spirit. It is impossible to be perfect.
Without the indwelling and filling by the Holy Spirit you will fail to reach the point in the journey where you give your will to God and in a face to face with Him know you can never turn back. Speaking in tongues is not necessary but it is helpful when you reach into the depths of your spiritual being and communicate with God.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Must you speak in tongues to be saved?

What popular pastor say that you must speak in Tongues to be saved? Is it Benny Hinn? Is it Hagee?

Who?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What popular pastor say that you must speak in Tongues to be saved? Is it Benny Hinn? Is it Hagee?

Who?

I don't know who started off that teaching, but I know who didn't say it: Paul the apostle, Peter, John, Jude. None of the early church 2nd generation fathers when tongues was still existed in the church. The early Pentecostals never taught it, and they were the pioneers who set the standards.

No. This product of a demonic lying spirit was coined around the 1980s. The doctrine that tongues is essential to salvation is a demonic doctrine to derail good believers from their faith in Christ.

I had a three-hour debate with a pastor of a church that believed in it, and he was so obsessed with the doctrine that I became convinced that he was demonized with a seducing lying spirit that had firmly embedded itself in his mind, and that he would need deliverance to root it out of him so he could start believing the truth once more. This is a real tragedy because he was the pastor of a Pentecostal church! What about all the unfortunate members of his congregation that he was imparting that demonic spirit to every time he preached to them? Very, very sad...

 

[OzSpen]

Oscarr,

I don't know who started off that teaching, but I know who didn't say it: Paul the apostle, Peter, John, Jude. None of the early church 2nd generation fathers when tongues was still existed in the church. The early Pentecostals never taught it, and they were the pioneers who set the standards.

No. This product of a demonic lying spirit was coined around the 1980s. The doctrine that tongues is essential to salvation is a demonic doctrine to derail good believers from their faith in Christ.

I had a three-hour debate with a pastor of a church that believed in it, and he was so obsessed with the doctrine that I became convinced that he was demonized with a seducing lying spirit that had firmly embedded itself in his mind, and that he would need deliverance to root it out of him so he could start believing the truth once more. This is a real tragedy because he was the pastor of a Pentecostal church! What about all the unfortunate members of his congregation that he was imparting that demonic spirit to every time he preached to them? Very, very sad...

A small Pentecostal denomination, Revival Centres International, of which there is one in my region, has this among its beliefs: “.. we are baptised into the Body of Christ (the Church) through the Holy Spirit, with the Bible evidence of speaking in tongues”. Speaking in tongues is linked to salvation for this denomination that is not in the Pentecostal mainstream.


In Christ, Oz

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr,

A small Pentecostal denomination, Revival Centres International, of which there is one in my region, has this among its beliefs: “.. we are baptised into the Body of Christ (the Church) through the Holy Spirit, with the Bible evidence of speaking in tongues”. Speaking in tongues is linked to salvation for this denomination that is not in the Pentecostal mainstream.


In Christ, Oz

In my memory the pastor I had the debate with led a Revival Centre church in Dunedin, NZ in 1988-89. I don't know if that church still exists because I moved away from Dunedin in 1990.

 

[fuegodedios]

Nope, one doesn't have to speak in tongues to be saved.

Everyone needs to understand the distinction between being born of the Spirit and filled with the Spirit (baptized in the Holy Spirit). All that is required to be saved is to be born of the Spirit. Tongues has to do with being filled with the Spirit.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"No. This product of a demonic lying spirit was coined around the 1980s."

Actually MUCH earlier than that - R.E. McALister was the modern progenitor in 1913, and spread the "Oneness poison" (including the necessity to "Speak in tongues" to be saved) in the newly formed Assemblies of God denomination until they tossed the entire "Oneness heresy" OUT in 1918.

 

[GodsServant05]

No, I didn't speak in tongues until 4 months ago, but I've been saved for many years.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, I didn't speak in tongues until 4 months ago, but I've been saved for many years.

I see that as the timing of God. It probably took that amount of time before you were ready to receive the gift and be able to appreciate and use it appropriately. Nothing in Christian development ever happens by accident.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Here is a question that we can kick around. I want to save opening up a new thread.

I have taken a lot of flak for saying that when we are baptised in the Spirit, we make up the language at first to activate our faith until the Spirit starts flowing out of us with a fluent language.

Now for those who believe that this is "faking" tongues, what do you think is the alternative?

Waiting with your mouth open for something to bubble up?
Making your mind blank and hoping that some "force" will take you over?

Isn't faith a deliberate action based on what one believes?

So, if tongues happens without an act of faith on the believer's part, would that not be a counterfeit, seeing that without faith it is impossible to please God?

It is interesting to note that in all the Acts reference to believers receiving the gift of tongues, the Scripture does not say exactly how they started speaking. All it says is that they spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2), or that they just started speaking in tongues and glorifying God. We don't really know how they started to speak. I am inclined to believe that when the Holy Spirit fell on them, they received the words in their minds and they spoke them out in faith. Luke does not say that they were taken over by any type of force, or that they were hyped up or ecstatic in any way. He reports that they just started to speak in tongues without any hint of any extraordinary emotions. Read it for yourself.

 

[Biblicist]

This is one of those questions where I suspect the answer is not necessarily if the approach is right or wrong, but by what degree we open our mouth and speak in tongues for the first time.

Unless we first open our mouths and allow our tongues to 'do something' then I find it hard to believe that the Spirit of God would force our mouths open and have us speaking in tongues.

For all of us I'm sure that we seek to allow the Spirit of God to pray through us in faith and unless we exhibit some outward faith indicator by first opening our mouth and allowing our faculties to begin praising God, then the only option is to sit still until the Spirit physically forces us.

Do we open our mouths and utter a half, one, two or three sylables before we have the confidence to allow the Spirit to pray though us? There are probably many of us who can easily believe what the Word tells us regarding the ability of the Spirit to pray through us and that we can all do it, but I'm sure our Western intellect may quickly get in the way where we shall I say try and help the Spirit.
Undoubtedly there will be many who are so conscious of the presence of the Spirit of God that their very first syllable will be totally under the control of the Spirit.

As its been over 38 years I cannot really remember my exact words but certainly with what occurred I knew within the first dozen or so syllables that it was God's Spirit speaking through me.

 

[patience7]

This is one of those questions where I suspect the answer is not necessarily if the approach right or wrong, but by what degree we open our mouth and speak in tongues for the first time.

Unless we first open our mouths and allow our tongues to 'do something' then I find it hard to believe that the Spirit of God would force our mouths open and have us speaking in tongues.

For all of us I'm sure that we seek to allow the Spirit of God to pray through us in faith and unless we exhibit some outward faith indicator by first opening our mouth and allowing our faculties to begin praising God, then the only option is to sit still until the Spirit physically forces us.

Do we open our mouths and utter a half, one, two or three sylables before we have the confidence to allow the Spirit to pray though us? There are probably many of us who can easily believe what the Word tells us regarding the ability of the Spirit to pray through us and that we can all do it, but I'm sure our Western intellect may quickly get in the way where we shall I say try and help the Spirit.
Undoubtedly there will be many who are so conscious of the presence of the Spirit of God that their very first syllable will be totally under the control of the Spirit.

As its been over 38 years I cannot really remember my exact words but certainly with what occurred I knew within the first dozen or so syllables that it was God's Spirit speaking through me.

I agree with what you have said. It's like babies - we don't force their mouths to open when they start talking and when they first start talking; it sounds like gibberish but as they continue then the pronunciation of those words become clearer.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I agree with what you have said. It's like babies - we don't force their mouths to open when they start talking and when they first start talking; it sounds like gibberish but as they continue then the pronunciation of those words become clearer.

Just for interest, I interviewed a Vietnamese client this morning with the help of an interpreter on "language line". They spoke what sounded like a lot of gobbledygook to me, but they were speaking an understandable language which was translated into perfectly clear English. So we cannot assume that when we speak what seems like gibberish to us, that it is not understood by God who needs no interpreter to know what we are speaking when we pray in tongues.