Speaking in tongues

I tried to introduce some discussion about the NT pattern of two baptisms. No takers.

In the book of the Acts we see a pattern of two baptisms:
1) Water baptism (followed by)
2) The baptism with the Holy Spirit. (typically administered by the laying on of hands)
Not necessarily in that order, or with the laying on of hands. See Cornelius and Pentecost.

Here below is the key text from my perspective.
- What were the new believers missing?
- How did they know it was missing?
- What was the needed solution?
- How was it administered?
- How did they know the believers had received it? (what evidence?)

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Always two things.
1 baptism in water (for remission of sins).
2. receiving the Holy Ghost (baptism in the Holy Ghost)

John the baptist points out that relationship in every gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) as he introduced Jesus (paraphrased as follows) "I baptize with water. He baptizes with the Holy Ghost"

Jesus says the same in Acts 1:5 " For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." showing that receiving the Holy Ghost is not synonymous with belief (aka. they can happen at separate times, as Acts 8 also proves).

I'm guessing that all will acknowledge that Jesus had already died and revived, as well as the disciples knew (and believed at the time he was speaking in Acts 1) that his death was as a sacrifice for their sins . And yet those believers (and apostles) had not yet received the Holy Ghost.

Something for everyone to consider...rather than disregard. But again, all have to choose their own path.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Do you believe that knowledge has passed away?

Thanks. That's good.
Let's see if we get some discussion.

I see a point here that I question. And this has come up a lot lately for some reason.
This idea (doctrine) of "baptism for remission of sins".
I know it shows up in the Nicene Creed, but I think the claimed biblical support is
pretty weak, if not completely erroneous. I tend toward the latter.

Not knowledge in respect to the perfect, it is still doing its living work of moving men to believe God. No knowledge of laws missing that I could think of ? What they had in part we have in full.

The baptism of water(h20) as that seen as a sign is not for remission of sins". It has its foundation in the old testament. Just as the tongues doctrine. If we destroy the foundations how will we know the intended outcome?

You've got more signs to look after than the highway department.

Then why would you believe that tongues and prophecy have passed away? (if knowledge hasn't)

What they had in part we have in full.

I have more signs, or the scriptures speaks of more signs ?

Are there no signs with water baptism ?

Seems clear to me?

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 1 Cor. 14:21=22

Thanks. That's good.
Let's see if we get some discussion.

But when considering the purpose of baptism... how many biblical accounts of baptism will you read before running into the concept of "remission of sins" being mentioned with it?

Then he says the opposite. Which is it?

1 Corinthians 14:23-25
So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Add the next verse so you can understand what prophecy is.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying scripture contradicts scripture. The law in verses 21 and 22 are not subject to change. What does the sign confirm and who does the Stammering lips it point to ? And then we can look what follows after the law

Do you believe that knowledge has passed away?

Paul applies the principle to those who consider speaking in tongues tobe madness.

Paul applies the principle to those who consider speaking in tongues tobe madness.

I believe scripture. 1 Cor 13:8 is true and seen as literal not figurative.

For the cause of Christ
Roger