[reaganaut]

I have a real issue with people who think speaking in tongues is proof of salvation or required of it. I have seen people pushed away from God because they were told they were not really saved if they didn’t speak in tongues.

Besides the fact that it adds to grace to make tongues a requirement for salvation.

[Quix]

Sooooooooo

where on this thread

or where ever on FR

or where ever anywhere

have I ever said such a thing, written such a thing or supported such a thing?

What is WITH all this compulstion to drag every straw dog in the neighborhood into such threads?

SHEESH!

[count-your-change]

The distinguishing characteristic by which Jesus’ disciples would be known was not speaking in tongues, it was Christ-like love. Those fruitages of the spirit Paul enumerated did not include speaking in tongues and no where is it suggested that so doing is necessary for salvation.

So I ask by what logic it would be a requirement for salvation.

[metmom]

I have a real issue with people who think speaking in tongues is proof of salvation or required of it. I have seen people pushed away from God because they were told they were not really saved if they didn’t speak in tongues. Besides the fact that it adds to grace to make tongues a requirement for salvation.

The bigger danger than the fact that it could shake the faith of a new believer, is that it can give someone confidence that they are saved when they're not. They can go blithely on their way to hell thinking that they're saved because they have the proof of having spoken in tongues when it was either subconsciously manufactured or a counterfeit of the enemy.

[boatbums]

Spot on!