One of the most ludicrous arguments that I have ever heard in a desperate effort to "get around" the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47 had
received the gift of the Holy Spirit and
spoke in tongues and
were saved before water baptism is that Balaam's donkey also spoke in tongues, but that does not prove the donkey was saved either.
No need to bring up Balaam's donkey, just bring up the verses.
Here is the text:
Acts 10:43-47
New King James Version
To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we
have?”
No mention of them believing the gospel, repenting of sins or confessing Jesus as Lord. Most of all no mention of them being saved.
Those of the house of Cornelius were still water baptized so that their sins would be forgiven, they were not an exception.
The recording of Peter's insistence on their need for water baptism is quite telling.
You are simply trying to shoehorn faith alone regeneration theology into these verses.
Only certain groups of Pentecostals believe that speaking in tongues is proof of salvation, are you one of them?