"Water", or "tongues" --- can one be "saved", without?

[nobdysfool]

So you do not what to check it out...

I didn't say I don't want to check it out. I said I don't need to. Why? Because I have first-hand experience which sets your view aside.

find the truth 2 tim 2:15 by studying ...

That is always my goal.

disagree find

but please study it out...

I have been down this road years ago. I know what the Word say and what it doesn't say about this. I am not a cessationist. There is still a need for the gifts today. The issue isn't whether the gifts are available, but whether people are ready to be used by the Holy Spirit in that way. He isn't going to give the gifts to people who are not ready and mature enough to receive them and use them correctly. When they are manifested as the Holy Spirit intends, they point to Jesus, as they were intended to do.

 

[Ben johnson]

So --- is a person who does not speak in tongues, any less "saved", than one who does?

If a person is in a situation where he cannot be baptized (say, prison-camp), but he believes and receives Jesus, will he be admitted into Heaven?

Can one be "baptized in the Spirit", without speaking in tongues?

And the "sub-question",
Can someone be saved without being "baptized in the Spirit"?

 

[nobdysfool]

So --- is a person who does not speak in tongues, any less "saved", than one who does?

No

If a person is in a situation where he cannot be baptized (say, prison-camp), but he believes and receives Jesus, will he be admitted into Heaven?

Yes

Can one be "baptized in the Spirit", without speaking in tongues?

Yes

And the "sub-question",
Can someone be saved without being "baptized in the Spirit"?

Yes.

And what was the purpose of your little questionaire? Trying to define what the bare-bones minimal requirements of salvation are?

 

[A Brother In Christ]

I didn't say I don't want to check it out. I said I don't need to. Why? Because I have first-hand experience which sets your view aside.

experience and feeling cannot be trusted.... are soul and body are still fallen

john 4:23-24

That is always my goal.



I have been down this road years ago. I know what the Word say and what it doesn't say about this. I am not a cessationist. There is still a need for the gifts today.

I did not say all gifts just these three are no more....

The issue isn't whether the gifts are available, but whether people are ready to be used by the Holy Spirit in that way.

I agree ... by counting ones self dead to the OSN and alive to Christ can God be showed for thru the dirt that we are...

He isn't going to give the gifts to people who are not ready and mature enough to receive them

at salvation God gives a gift to every believer however they must have studied God's word within the body

and use them correctly. When they are manifested as the Holy Spirit intends, they point to Jesus, as they were intended to do.

Benny hin..... pointing to Jesus or benny?

 

[A Brother In Christ]

And the "sub-question",
Can someone be saved without being "baptized in the Spirit"?

how do you deal with romans 8:9?

scripture argue with you

 

[nobdysfool]

experience and feeling cannot be trusted.... are soul and body are still fallen

I never said otherwise, but after 30 years of consistency, I can point to it as an example.

I did not say all gifts just these three are no more....

And with respect, you're wrong. I showed you why. Your "proofs" don't hold up.

I agree ... by counting ones self dead to the OSN and alive to Christ can God be showed for thru the dirt that we are...

OK, I see what you mean, and I agree at that point.

at salvation God gives a gift to every believer however they must have studied God's word within the body

Not sure what you're saying here, but I don't see any scripture that says that God gives "a" gift to every believer at salvation. He may give one, or more than one, as He Wills.

Benny hin..... pointing to Jesus or benny?

You're kidding, right? I don't pay any attention to that guy. Are you going to tell me that he uses the Gifts of the Holy Spirit? I know he claims to, but there are too many shenanigans going on behind the scenes. I don't see him as genuine. There are others, who do not promote themselves, who do not engage in circuses and such, who are quietly using the Gifts in ministry to others, leading folks to Christ, and doing the work of the Kingdom.

Everytime a discussion of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit comes up, it's only a matter of time before someone mentions Benny Hinn. Is that because they think that he is proof that the gifts ceased? or is it because they secretly wonder if he is proof that they have NOT ceased? I would never use him as an example, either way. The Word of God is the only authority I need to answer the question.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Not sure what you're saying here, but I don't see any scripture that says that God gives "a" gift to every believer at salvation. He may give one, or more than one, as He Wills.

1 peter 4:10 As every man hath recieved a gift

is singular

can an arm be a leg too with in the body... 1 cor 12:12-31

You're kidding, right? I don't pay any attention to that guy. Are you going to tell me that he uses the Gifts of the Holy Spirit? I know he claims to, but there are too many shenanigans going on behind the scenes. I don't see him as genuine. There are others, who do not promote themselves, who do not engage in circuses and such, who are quietly using the Gifts in ministry to others, leading folks to Christ, and doing the work of the Kingdom.

So you believe we can judge other people.... interesting I remember to telling we not to... So you agree with Paul in 1 cor 6:2-3

Everytime a discussion of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit comes up, it's only a matter of time before someone mentions Benny Hinn. Is that because they think that he is proof that the gifts ceased?

No... improper use for self gain

or is it because they secretly wonder if he is proof that they have NOT ceased? I would never use him as an example, either way. The Word of God is the only authority I need to answer the question.

agreed... still waiting for your scripture...

 

[Ben johnson]

And what was the purpose of your little questionaire? Trying to define what the bare-bones minimal requirements of salvation are?

To answer those who say "you must be waterbaptized or you're not going to Heaven"; and those who say "you must speak in tongues, or you're not filled with the holy Spirit".

(Often that takes the form of, "Filled with the Spirit, with EVIDENCE of speaking in tongues".)

how do you deal with romans 8:9?

scripture argue with you

"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

ABIC, doesn't verse 12-14 present "being in the Spirit", which is "being led by the Spirit", as a constant choice?

How does it not?

 

[nobdysfool]

To answer those who say "you must be waterbaptized or you're not going to Heaven"; and those who say "you must speak in tongues, or you're not filled with the holy Spirit".

(Often that takes the form of, "Filled with the Spirit, with EVIDENCE of speaking in tongues".)

OK, fair enough. Did I pass the test??

"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

ABIC, doesn't verse 12-14 present "being in the Spirit", which is "being led by the Spirit", as a constant choice?

How does it not?

The context doesn't really speak to a choice situation the way you're trying to state it, it is a contrast between those who do not have Christ and those who do. As I see it, the prime mover is the Spirit of Christ, giving life to the believer, and Paul states that "You ARE in the Spirit, if the Spirit of Christ dwells in you", not "You are in the Spirit if you CHOOSE to be."

Paul makes the point that we are not debtors to the flesh. That means we are no longer bound by the lusts of our flesh. The choice is to live up to our new life in Christ, rather than down to our former life in sin. Before the bondage was broken, we could not live according to the Spirit. Now that we have the Spirit, we can live according to the Spirit, because it is the Spirit which gives life to our mortal bodies, it is the Spirit which makes us alive to Christ. Paul is establishing the fact that the Spiritual reality of Christ in us is a present reality.

I think the key point is verse 10: But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. This is not a matter of choice, this is the reality. To add a bit of clarity, the body is dead because of our sin, but the spirit is life because of HIS Righteousness. It perfectly describes our present situation, having been made alive by the Spirit, but yet we live in the old man's body, waiting for the redemption of that body, the glorification of that body into incorruptibility, and the final release from sin's effects.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

ABIC, doesn't verse 12-14 present "being in the Spirit", which is "being led by the Spirit", as a constant choice?

How does it not?

Yes it is a choice for a believer ..

1thes 5:10.... that whether we wake or sleep we will live with Him

 

[jmacvols]

Some believe that "waterbaptism" is part of salvation; thus "dipped or condemned".

Other believe that speaking in tongues is the evidence that one HAS the Holy Spirit. So "without tongues", one does NOT have the Holy Spirit in a saving-sense.

What is your opinion? Did all those who received Jesus in Dacau or Auschwitz, but who were not "dipped", perish? Or shall we see them in Heaven?

Are all those who do not speak in tongues, but think they are saved, deceived?

Support your view with Scripture. Civility, respect, and love please. Those who do not, will receive thirty thousand lashes with a piece of wet spaghetti.

...and OLD piece of wet spaghetti...

Of course water baptism is necessary for slvation, Mk 16:16, Acts 2:38.

Speaking in tongues was a gift that would cease, 1 Cor 13. Those that spoke in tongues could be understood, Acts 2, 'every man heard them speak in his own language' and 'how hear we every man in our own language'. Compare this to the TV evangelists that are uttering jibberish that cannot be understood.

 

[Ben johnson]

Of course water baptism is necessary for salvation, Mk 16:16, Acts 2:38.

Hi, Jmac. Great post --- because it can lead to a discussion of the Scriptures.

Mk16:16 "He who believes and is baptized, is saved; he who has disbelieved shall be condemned".

Jesus does seem to be talking about "waterbaptism" here. But what does He say? "Baptism is part OF salvation"? I don't see that. He's simply stating fact --- "he who believes, and is baptized". Only disbelief condemns, according to Jesus, in this verse.

You would have done better to quote Acts 22:16, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."

Yet --- even this one connects two concepts: "BAPTIZED" is one, "WASH away your sins". Is it the WATER that washes away sins, or "calling on His name"? Those two concepts are connected with "AND" --- had waterbaptism been part OF salvation, we would have expected the connective-conjunction to be "TO". But grammar aside --- look at Acts 10:47 --- these people had RECEIVED the Holy Spirit, but had not (yet) been waterbaptized. Can we pretend they were "not saved"? Of course they were; the Spirit does not indwell unsaved-unbelievers.

Acts 2:38 says "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit". We've already discussed a verse where they received the Spirit BEFORE being "dipped" --- can we credibly think that here too it is the NAME of Jesus that forgives sins? I think that's valid...

Let's examine the word itself, "baptize". In Matt3:11-12, there is a clear distinction between "baptized in water", and "baptized in the Spirit". Will you accept that "immersed-in-the-Spirit", is what John (the Baptist) was saying? He could be saying nothing else, could he?

So --- if "immersed in the Spirit" is commensurate with "salvation", then let's re-visit Rom6:1-11 --- it says "baptized into Christ". We've shown the Scriptural fact of "baptized-immersed in the Spirit", which is APART from water, can we deny that the same "immersion" also means "into Christ"?

If Matt3:11-12 provides a "saving-baptism which is apart from water", then Rom6 also asserts a "saving-baptism" which has nothing to do with water.

So --- Rom6:2-11 uses five terms, interchangeably --- "crucified", "buried", "died", "baptized", "UNITED". It is far more consistent to understand "baptized-immersed", than it is to think "baptized-water-dipped".

You see that "immersed" equates fully to "united".


Based on the fact that Cornelius & family had fully believed and RECEIVED the Holy Spirit, before (apart from) waterbaptism, and based on how each verse thought to assert "dipped-or-condemned" can be credibly understood otherwise, will all of you consider that waterbaptism is part of BEING saved, but is not part of salvation itself?

Speaking in tongues was a gift that would cease, 1 Cor 13.

When did it cease, JMac? In context, "when the PERFECT has COME".

Has He? No. There are those who speak in tongues. Though I do not really have the gift of tongues, I have spoken Hebrew in prayer, never having known the language.

Those that spoke in tongues could be understood, Acts 2, 'every man heard them speak in his own language' and 'how hear we every man in our own language'.

It always occurred to me that the gift, in that instance, might have been more "EARS", than "tongues". Don't you think?

Compare this to the TV evangelists that are uttering jibberish that cannot be understood.

I agree that many people who think they are "tonguing", are not. As you say, "tongues are supposed to be a language". But many churches accept your "gift", if you say "La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la".

In a social setting (church that promotes "filled, with evidence of tongues") where tonguing is, essentially, required, absolutely everyone WILL manifest something. But if Paul's words are true in 1Cor12:30 (he uses the "me" ["may"] construct, so the correct translation is: "All do NOT speak in tongues, DO they!" It's a negative question expecting an answer only of "no") --- then all do not speak in tongues, do they?

The idea of "public tongues" and "private tongues", as separate gifts, is not in 1Cor12-14. He is saying "do not SPEAK tongues in PUBLIC, without translation."

Actually, it seems Paul goes farther --- looks to me like Corinth was focusing on "tonguing", gloating that they did. So Paul was saying, "I wish all of you spoke in tongues --- but all do NOT speak in tongues, DO they? There are other gives that are more important..."

Read 14:20 --- it's really a rebuke. Paul is saying, "Guys, GROW UP!"

Tonguing is not an important gift. Prophesying is a greater gift. And EACH gift is EQUALLY important to the whole, each completes a part of the Body.

The greatest gift of all, is love.

 

[Ben johnson]

I see no difference in Scripture between "sealed in the Spirit" (Eph1:13), and "baptized in the Spirit" (Matt3:13), and "received the Spirit" (1Cor1:12).

Being a Christian, is an indwelt fellowship between Creator (Jesus) and creature (you and me). We are indwelt by Jesus, and by the Spirit.

There is no "second baptism, baptism-of-the-Spirit". There is no kind of salvation apart from "immersed/baptized in the Spirit". He either indwells us, or not.

 

[jmacvols]

Hi, Jmac. Great post --- because it can lead to a discussion of the Scriptures.

Mk16:16 "He who believes and is baptized, is saved; he who has disbelieved shall be condemned".

Jesus does seem to be talking about "waterbaptism" here. But what does He say? "Baptism is part OF salvation"? I don't see that. He's simply stating fact --- "he who believes, and is baptized". Only disbelief condemns, according to Jesus, in this verse.

Jesus connected 'believeth' to 'baptized' with the conjunction 'and'. This conjunction ties the two together so they cannot be seperated. Therefore if belief is necessary, so is baptism. The order of the verse puts belief before baptism and both before 'saved'. This verse does not read 'he that believeth is saved and can be baptized later'. Belief alone will not save. The second part of this verse Jesus deals with condemnation. One condition is needed to be met to be condemned; unbelief. One does not have to not believe and not be baptized to be lost, simple unbelief will do it. It is redundant and pointless for Jesus to say 'he that believes not, and is not baptized because of his unbelief, shall be condemned'. The first part of this verse makes belief a prerequiste to being baptized. Thus the unbeliever is not baptized. So when Jesus said 'he that believeth not', this phrase already includes the unbaptized. "'Believeth" and "baptized" are participles in the aorist tense which in the Greek shows actions that occurs prior to the leading verb, 'shall be saved'

You would have done better to quote Acts 22:16, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."

Yet --- even this one connects two concepts: "BAPTIZED" is one, "WASH away your sins". Is it the WATER that washes away sins, or "calling on His name"? Those two concepts are connected with "AND" --- had waterbaptism been part OF salvation, we would have expected the connective-conjunction to be "TO". But grammar aside --- look at Acts 10:47 --- these people had RECEIVED the Holy Spirit, but had not (yet) been waterbaptized. Can we pretend they were "not saved"? Of course they were; the Spirit does not indwell unsaved-unbelievers.

In Acts 9 Paul was told to go to the city and there it would told him what he must do, Acts 9:6. We see in Acts 22 Ananias telling Saul what he must do, namely to be baptized to wash away his sins. Must is not a conditional word. Then Paul was still in his sins on the road to Damascus, so he was not 'saved' there. Both 'be baptized' and 'wash away' are aorist imperatives and are causative middles and the action covered by the aorist participle 'calling', is simultaneous with the aorist imperatives, 'be baptize' and 'wash away'. So when Paul was baptized and washed away his sins, he was then, and no time before, calling on the name of the Lord. In other words, he could not be calling on the name of the Lord until he was baptized and washed away his sins. This verse does not read 'wash away thy sins by calling on the name of the Lord and then get baptized'. This would be a complete distortion of the verse. In Acts 2:21 Peter quotes Joel's prophecy from Joel chp 2 and says "whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved'. We can see this prophecy being fufilled in Acts 2:38 & following.

Acts 2:21--call on the name of the Lord>>>>>saved
Acts 2:38--repent & be baptized>>>>>>>>>>remission of sins

We can see that 'saved' and 'remission of sins' are equal. Since the bible does not contradict itself and there is only one way to be saved, then the same thing that saves must also remit sins. Therefore 'call on the name of the Lord' must include repenting and being baptized. If you argue that the above two verses do not say the same thing, then you are either saying the bible contradicts itself or there is more than one way to be saved.

Acts 2:38 says "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit". We've already discussed a verse where they received the Spirit BEFORE being "dipped" --- can we credibly think that here too it is the NAME of Jesus that forgives sins? I think that's valid...

The order of Acts 2:38 is one receives the gift of the Holy Ghost after he first repents and is baptized. This gift of the Holy Ghost here is not the same as the baptism with the Holy Ghost as prophesied by Joel. Cornelius being baptized with the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with his personal salvation.

Will you accept that "immersed-in-the-Spirit", is what John (the Baptist) was saying?[/b] He could be saying nothing else, could he?

Matt 3 does not promise everyone baptism with the Holy Ghost. Baptism with the Holy Spirit was promised only to the apostles, Acts 1:1-5. In the context of verse 11, John uses the pronoun "you" in a limited, nonpersonal sense. We see from v7 unbelievers (Pharisee) were in John's audience. When John said I baptize "you' with water, this 'you' obviously did not include these unbelievers, Lk 7:30, thus 'you is used in a limited sense. The second 'you' is also used in a limited sense. Not everyone will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If 'you' is universal, then not only would everyone in John's audience be baptized with the Holy spirit they would be baptized with fire, hence everyone in his audience would be lost. John said Jesus would baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire. So if you think this verse means you will be baptized with the Holy Ghost, when will you be baptized with fire?

So --- if "immersed in the Spirit" is commensurate with "salvation", then let's re-visit Rom6:1-11 --- it says "baptized into Christ". We've shown the Scriptural fact of "baptized-immersed in the Spirit", which is APART from water, can we deny that the same "immersion" also means "into Christ"?

No one was ever commanded to be baptized in the Spirit. Again, only the apostles were promised to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. One cannot obey a promise, but one can obey a command to be water baptized as in Acts 2:38.
No where in Acts 10 or 11 does the context say Cornelius would be saved by being baptized with the Holy Spirit, Acts 11;14 says he would be saved by words Peter would tell him.
In Acts 19 Paul baptized these Ephesians in the name of the Lord, v5, which is the same baptism of Acts 10:47,48, water baptism. But it was not until after they were water baptized they received the Holy Spirit.

Again, baptism with the Holy Ghost was a prophecy of Joel, Joel 2:28. This prphecu was fulfilled by CHrist, so this baptism is obsolete, has been for some 2000 years.

In all the NT only twice, Acts 2 and 10, do we see any one being baptized with the Holy SPirit, no one else. We can see from Peter's words in Acts 2:16 that baptism with the Holy Spirit was a prophecy of Joel beginning to be fufilled in Acts 2 and completely fulfilled in Acts 10.

No verse commands any one to be baptized with the Holy SPirit.

No verse says that baptism with the Holy Spirit remits sins, saves.

No verse promises baptism with the Holy SPirit to any one other than the apostles, Acts 1:1-5.

No verse says that baptism with the Holy Spirit would last till the end of time.

Now I can show you verses that says water baptism is commanded, that it remits sins, that it is for everyone, and that it lasts till the end of time.

Is it not evident then that the one baptism that the one Lord, (Eph 4:5), commanded was water baptism for the remission of sins?

If Matt3:11-12 provides a "saving-baptism which is apart from water", then Rom6 also asserts a "saving-baptism" which has nothing to do with water.

Rom 6 is not baptism with the Holy Spirit. Per above, the one baptism of Eph 4:5 has to be water baptism so Rom 6 has to be water baptism. It is evident throughout Acts water baptism took place. You try and bring back baptism with the Holy SPirit and thus create two baptism which is contrary to Eph 4:5. Again the langauge of Rom 6:4 uses buried and raised up from. If this is baptism with the Holy Spirit one would be buried, but then raised up from the Holy Spirit, he would not maintain the Holy Spirit. The language here coincides with water baptism, one is buried in a watery grave and raised up r from that watery grave to walk in newness of life.
Again baptism with the Hloy Spirit was only promised to the apostles, Acts 1:-5, it was never commanded to anyone to obey. One cannot obey a promise, but he can obey the command to be water baptized. In Rom 6:17,18 Paul said the Romans obeyed from the heart and this obedience is what made them free from sin or justified. The Romans obedience to being water baptized is what justified them. In v7 Paul says he that is 'dead' is free from sin (justified). So the thing that casues one to be 'dead' is what justifies. From Rom 6:3-5 it is baptism that causes one to be 'dead'. So this baptism that made the Romans dead to sin is a baptism they obeyed from the heart to make them justified, they obeyed the command to be water baptized which made them free from sin.

Now what verse says the Romans were commanded to be baptized with the Holy Spirit or what verse promises that the Romans would be baptized with the Holy Spirit?

I'll try and finish my response tomorrow.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

ABIC, doesn't verse 12-14 present "being in the Spirit", which is "being led by the Spirit", as a constant choice?

How does it not?

Romans 8:14 for as many as are led [pratice] by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

1 john 3:2 Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.

children of God .... refers to believer who need child training since they do not obey all the time...

sons of God are believers who are living the christain life... being free from the OSN and alive to Christ ... once one goes away and sins they are still children of God

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Hi, Jmac. Great post --- because it can lead to a discussion of the Scriptures.

Mk16:16 "He who believes and is baptized, is saved; he who has disbelieved shall be condemned".

Jesus does seem to be talking about "waterbaptism" here. But what does He say? "Baptism is part OF salvation"? I don't see that. He's simply stating fact --- "he who believes, and is baptized". Only disbelief condemns, according to Jesus, in this verse.

Mark 16:16 believe and is baptzed

......body truth....

eph 4:3 Endeavouring th guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

we know through scritpure there is a couple different baptism [water and spirit: are two of them] Romans 8:9 state one must have the Spirit in them... how does this happen well 1 cor 12:12-13 states the HOW!

notice also the one.... body

1 cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentile, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye where sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.

these two verse are the same action going on with each focusing on a different aspect of one salvation.

why is the body truth so important ... it part of understanding GRACE!

1 cor 12:21 and the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

and since Christ is the head of the body if one sins .... what does 1 cor 12:21 state.... this is grace of the cross... grace of the present tense and the grace of judgement [the Rapture]

eph 4:15 But the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

You would have done better to quote Acts 22:16, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."

Yet --- even this one connects two concepts: "BAPTIZED" is one, "WASH away your sins". Is it the WATER that washes away sins, or "calling on His name"? Those two concepts are connected with "AND" --- had waterbaptism been part OF salvation, we would have expected the connective-conjunction to be "TO". But grammar aside --- look at Acts 10:47 --- these people had RECEIVED the Holy Spirit, but had not (yet) been waterbaptized. Can we pretend they were "not saved"? Of course they were; the Spirit does not indwell unsaved-unbelievers.

1 peter 1:18 .... ye were not redeemed with corruptible things ....
19 But with the precious blood of Christ

it the blood that covers ... not water unless to replying to John 7:37-39 water=spirit

Acts 2:38 says "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit". We've already discussed a verse where they received the Spirit BEFORE being "dipped" --- can we credibly think that here too it is the NAME of Jesus that forgives sins? I think that's valid...

Let's examine the word itself, "baptize". In Matt3:11-12, there is a clear distinction between "baptized in water", and "baptized in the Spirit". Will you accept that "immersed-in-the-Spirit", is what John (the Baptist) was saying? He could be saying nothing else, could he?

So --- if "immersed in the Spirit" is commensurate with "salvation", then let's re-visit Rom6:1-11 --- it says "baptized into Christ". We've shown the Scriptural fact of "baptized-immersed in the Spirit", which is APART from water, can we deny that the same "immersion" also means "into Christ"?

If Matt3:11-12 provides a "saving-baptism which is apart from water", then Rom6 also asserts a "saving-baptism" which has nothing to do with water.

So --- Rom6:2-11 uses five terms, interchangeably --- "crucified", "buried", "died", "baptized", "UNITED". It is far more consistent to understand "baptized-immersed", than it is to think "baptized-water-dipped".

You see that "immersed" equates fully to "united".


Based on the fact that Cornelius & family had fully believed and RECEIVED the Holy Spirit, before (apart from) waterbaptism, and based on how each verse thought to assert "dipped-or-condemned" can be credibly understood otherwise, will all of you consider that waterbaptism is part of BEING saved, but is not part of salvation itself?[/QUOTE]back to eph 4:3-6

When did it cease, JMac? In context, "when the PERFECT has COME".

Has He?

in context "perfect has come" relates to complete prophecy... in the greek this is a nuetur things

Christ is in the male form of speech
Bible is the female type of speech

I am sure that you would agree that ARE SAVIOUR IS NOT A THING .

No. There are those who speak in tongues. Though I do not really have the gift of tongues, I have spoken Hebrew in prayer, never having known the language.

so who translated 1 cor 14:28 ... notice there was never tranlators in acts 2 reason the corinthians were as a majority carnal by one way or another. Yet still seal in the body ... grace

It always occurred to me that the gift, in that instance, might have been more "EARS", than "tongues". Don't you think? I agree that many people who think they are "tonguing", are not. As you say, "tongues are supposed to be a language". But many churches accept your "gift", if you say "La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la".

In a social setting (church that promotes "filled, with evidence of tongues") where tonguing is, essentially, required, absolutely everyone WILL manifest something. But if Paul's words are true in 1Cor12:30 (he uses the "me" ["may"] construct, so the correct translation is: "All do NOT speak in tongues, DO they!" It's a negative question expecting an answer only of "no") --- then all do not speak in tongues, do they?

because the gift of tongues was to an evanglist so that they could spread the gospel..

Paul had the gift of Healing yet he did not heal himself... God controlled when they could use it...

The idea of "public tongues" and "private tongues", as separate gifts, is not in 1Cor12-14. He is saying "do not SPEAK tongues in PUBLIC, without translation."

acts 2 compare with 1 cor 12-14

difference of spiritual and fleshly christians

Actually, it seems Paul goes farther --- looks to me like Corinth was focusing on "tonguing", gloating that they did. So Paul was saying, "I wish all of you spoke in tongues --- but all do NOT speak in tongues, DO they? There are other gives that are more important..."

Read 14:20 --- it's really a rebuke. Paul is saying, "Guys, GROW UP!"

Tonguing is not an important gift. Prophesying is a greater gift. And EACH gift is EQUALLY important to the whole, each completes a part of the Body.

The greatest gift of all, is love.

John 13:34-35

 

[jmacvols]

When did it cease, JMac? In context, "when the PERFECT has COME".

Tongues ceased when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be done away, 1 Cor 13:10. The word perfect here as used in the KJV, means whole or complete. Teleios (perfect) means "complete" here as Paul contrasts it to that which is "in part", ek meros. So when the whole or complete revelation has come, then the 'in part' shall be done away with. The 'in part' is the piece by piece revelation of God's word done thru miraculous means, as prophecies, tongues, supernatural knowledge, shall cease, which they have.
This same idea of 1 Cor 13:11 is found in Eph 4:8-13. To quickly sum this passage up, when Christ ascended, He gave gifts to men, v8. These gifts would last "till we all come into unity of the faith', v13. The word till (mechri) denotes a specified time, these gifts would last only up to a point in time, that is, these gifts would last as long as they were meant to last. They would last till we all come into the unity of the faith. Unity (henotes) means whole or complete as contrasted to that which is 'in part'. The faith refers to the whole and/or complete gospel, So these gifts would continue "till" the whole gospel was completely revealed, then the gifts would cease. 1 Cor 13 and Eph 4 mirror each other.

Has He? No. There are those who speak in tongues. Though I do not really have the gift of tongues, I have spoken Hebrew in prayer, never having known the language. It always occurred to me that the gift, in that instance, might have been more "EARS", than "tongues". Don't you think? I agree that many people who think they are "tonguing", are not. As you say, "tongues are supposed to be a language". But many churches accept your "gift", if you say "La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la".

You ask "has he?" The "perfect" is not Christ, but the whole and/or complete revelation of God, and yes it has come. People make claims about speaking in tongues, but as Paul said, such has ceased.
One can think of miracles as scaffolding. When a building is in the process of being erected, scaffolding is used to help. But once the building is completed the scaffolding is no longer needed, so it is taken away. When the church was in its infancy and God's word in the process of being revealed, miracles were used to bring it about. But now that God's word is complete, miracles, like the scaffolding, are no longer needed.

In a social setting (church that promotes "filled, with evidence of tongues") where tonguing is, essentially, required, absolutely everyone WILL manifest something. But if Paul's words are true in 1Cor12:30 (he uses the "me" ["may"] construct, so the correct translation is: "All do NOT speak in tongues, DO they!" It's a negative question expecting an answer only of "no") --- then all do not speak in tongues, do they?

The idea of "public tongues" and "private tongues", as separate gifts, is not in 1Cor12-14. He is saying "do not SPEAK tongues in PUBLIC, without translation."

Actually, it seems Paul goes farther --- looks to me like Corinth was focusing on "tonguing", gloating that they did. So Paul was saying, "I wish all of you spoke in tongues --- but all do NOT speak in tongues, DO they? There are other gives that are more important..."

Read 14:20 --- it's really a rebuke. Paul is saying, "Guys, GROW UP!"

At the time Paul wrote the Corinthian epistle, tongues were still in use, and Paul gave them instructions regarding their use. But the use of miraculous tongues are no longer around today. Again, it ceased after the complete revelation of God came, they were no longer needed or necessary.

Tonguing is not an important gift. Prophesying is a greater gift. And EACH gift is EQUALLY important to the whole, each completes a part of the Body.

The greatest gift of all, is love.

Of faith hope and love, love is the greatest, but no one today has miraculous abilities as spaking in tongues or prophecying.

</IMG>