Speaking in Tongues

[guanophore]

To receive water baptism is work and not grace. The man goes and enters the water and is baptized.

You seem to be confused about Holy Works (ergos hagios). These are the works that God has prepared for us, that we should walk in them. We are only able to walk in them by grace. No one comes to the the Son unless the Father calls him. Grace is the only means by which one can enter the water. I agree, one must cooperate with the grace, but it is moved and completed by grace.

Answer me this. If you were blind, and Jesus made mud, put it on your eyes, and commanded you to go wash in a certain pool, and you did so and received your sight, did you “work” to be healed? Was it not grace that healed you? Was it “work not grace” because you were obedient, and did what was commanded?

Yet, when a man is saved, he is saved by grace. The man believes and his heart is circumcised, being baptized into Christ through his blood. Christ does the baptizing.

Yes, Christ does the baptizing. The Apostles taught that the heart was circumcised in the baptismal waters, where we are joined with Christ in HIs death and resurrection, and marked with the sign of the Spirit, the guarantee of our inheritance.

It is written that a man must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. For a man to need a second birth, he would of had to have a previous birth that died. In a man this dead comes by way of disobedience to the laws of God.

Yes, it is written that a man must be born again. That does not mean, though, that the person “has died”. We are born with original sin, and are dead in our trespasses and sins. Even a person who does not lead a sinful life, or has never learned the laws of God needs to be born again.

Let’s take the baptism stuff to the baptism thread. The topic of this thread is tongues.

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

Can I add one more baptism comment before we go back to tongues first?



did you ever notice that in John 3, the most contested portion of scripture about whether Jesus was talking about baptism or not, well look what that most excellent Gospel writer and mystical evangelist and apostle John talks about (John does not put things in their particular order for no reason, it is heavy duty theology and is placed this way for a reason):

In John chapter 3, we are learning about the beginning of Christian life: Baptism.

check out John 3:22 “After this, Jesus and disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.”

It is there for a purpose.

now I am done! Let’s praise the Lord in tongues for a change! Alleluia! !!!

 

[CWBetts]

Can I add one more baptism comment before we go back to tongues first?



did you ever notice that in John 3, the most contested portion of scripture about whether Jesus was talking about baptism or not, well look what that most excellent Gospel writer and mystical evangelist and apostle John talks about (John does not put things in their particular order for no reason, it is heavy duty theology and is placed this way for a reason):

In John chapter 3, we are learning about the beginning of Christian life: Baptism.

check out John 3:22 “After this, Jesus and disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.”

It is there for a purpose.

now I am done! Let’s praise the Lord in tongues for a change! Alleluia! !!!

Why the empasis on tounges? Really? I do not deny that it is a gift, but it is by no means the gratest of gifts.

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

Why the empasis on tounges? Really? I do not deny that it is a gift, but it is by no means the gratest of gifts.

the emphasis is on tongues because of the thread title! ( I couldn’t resist!) We have been talking about baptism for so long in here, and yeah I guess it was for a reason of course.

well tongues is a gift of the Holy spirit and all of his gifts are worthy, after all, He is God!

From my personal experience with tongues, it really helps my faith so much that I would love to see many more of my brothers and sisters sharing in it as well.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Maybe I don’t understand the highlighted part or maybe I am just being too simplistic. Remember I am a Catholic so there might be certain definition of the words you used that I may understand differently.

While I agree with the salvation as you put it per se, that it is as long as the HG is in you. I don’t want to enter into a debate on this if you are OSAS Christian. If you are, then suffice to say this is always our difference.

God bless.

Many believe in once saved, always saved. This is contrary to the Word of God. Do not make the same mistake acient Israel made.

They brought sacrifices to the alter for forgiveness of sin, but there was more then just bringing a sin offering. The man was to be truly repentent in his heart. Yet, over time Israel became complacent and their salvation became a work, and not a true act of repentence. They is why God hardened their hearts. If they would have stayed the course, they would have remained a spiritual people and would have recognized the signs of the time, the coming of their messiah.

Personally, I believe one the the largest lies the devil has used against the church to steal the souls of men is the once saved, always saved doctrine.

 

[Augie1530]

seems to me that the majority of :speaking in tongues" prayer tongues and other psudo tongues are nothing more than false teachings brought on by wannabe pentacostals thinking that gibberish is a gift of the Holy Spirit it reminds me of the movie elmer gantry and faith healers If you want tht truth on speaking in tongues read the book of acts where it clearly states that men were speaking in “Foreign tongues” example GREEK LATIN HEBREW ARAMAIC and the languages around Jerusalem by the apostles who werre not trained to speak foreign languages out side their own aramaic and hebrew or greek The holy spirit gave them the power to speak in known tongues of the area in which they were to inform visitors in their own language the story of Jesus so they would know and believe .

 

[heiscominginthe]

Answer me this. If you were blind, and Jesus made mud, put it on your eyes, and commanded you to go wash in a certain pool, and you did so and received your sight, did you “work” to be healed? Was it not grace that healed you? Was it “work not grace” because you were obedient, and did what was commanded?

Is faith work? Does acceptable work exist without faith. We are saved by faith, not works. Our work starts through Christ after we come to him by faith.

 

[guanophore]

My question to you is, why do we need to speak in tongues today since we have the Bible?

I don’t understand the question. Why would someone fail to pray, just because they have a Bible?

The Scriptures do not have intellect, will, and discernment. They cannot “pray” through you. Only the Spirit of God in you can do that. Scripture is very profitable in buiding one’s prayer life, but to suggest that one would not need to pray because one has Scripture does not make any sense.

If you are asking about the use of speaking in tongues in the public assembly, it seems to me that such a question would only be asked by a person who believed that all of the Word of God is limited to Holy Scripture. Such a belief is a grievious error.

Answer me this. If you were blind, and Jesus made mud, put it on your eyes, and commanded you to go wash in a certain pool, and you did so and received your sight, did you “work” to be healed? Was it not grace that healed you? Was it “work not grace” because you were obedient, and did what was commanded?

I do hope, heiscoming, that you will take the quote tutorial, so that you can avoid smushing quotes together. You can see that, when I hit “quote” to reply to this post of yours, nothing you wrote appears in it, because you did not use the quote feature correctly.

It is no matter, however, because you did not answer the question I posted to you above.

Yes, faith is a work, just like all the sacraments are “work”. Faith is the manner in which we are saved by grace. Faith is at work in all of the sacraments, because they are avenues of His saving grace. Now, did the the man in the above scenario “work” or “earn” his healing?

 

[heiscominginthe]

JL: Is that the best you can do. I will not post about baptism on this line. I will try to get to your posts and post on the 3 baptism line when I get the change. I could be next week

Okay, I will talk to you then. Take care.

 

[heiscominginthe]

seems to me that the majority of :speaking in tongues" prayer tongues and other psudo tongues are nothing more than false teachings brought on by wannabe pentacostals thinking that gibberish is a gift of the Holy Spirit it reminds me of the movie elmer gantry and faith healers If you want tht truth on speaking in tongues read the book of acts where it clearly states that men were speaking in “Foreign tongues” example GREEK LATIN HEBREW ARAMAIC and the languages around Jerusalem by the apostles who werre not trained to speak foreign languages out side their own aramaic and hebrew or greek The holy spirit gave them the power to speak in known tongues of the area in which they were to inform visitors in their own language the story of Jesus so they would know and believe .

What do you suppose and unknown tongue is?

1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Jude1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

 

[heiscominginthe]

You seem to be confused about Holy Works (ergos hagios). These are the works that God has prepared for us, that we should walk in them. We are only able to walk in them by grace. No one comes to the the Son unless the Father calls him. Grace is the only means by which one can enter the water. I agree, one must cooperate with the grace, but it is moved and completed by grace.

It is written that grace is the free gift from God. There is a big difference between faith and water baptism. If a man does not have faith, if the man is not already born again, he enters the water of baptism a sinner and comes out of the water a sinner. Yet, there have been times when men who at the time of being baptized in water had the change in their heart, being saved while being baptized.

Yes, Christ does the baptizing. The Apostles taught that the heart was circumcised in the baptismal waters, where we are joined with Christ in HIs death and resurrection, and marked with the sign of the Spirit, the guarantee of our inheritance.

How about showing me this in the bible.

Yes, it is written that a man must be born again. That does not mean, though, that the person “has died”. We are born with original sin, and are dead in our trespasses and sins. Even a person who does not lead a sinful life, or has never learned the laws of God needs to be born again.

Let’s take the baptism stuff to the baptism thread. The topic of this thread is tongues.

So do you believe the Word of God is truth? Answer me this. God told Adam that in the day he ate the forbidden fruit he would die. Yet, Adam lived in the flesh hundreds of years after being cast from the garden.

So, is the Word of God wrong or did Adam die in the day he ate the fruit?

 

[CWBetts]

It is written that grace is the free gift from God. There is a big difference between faith and water baptism. If a man does not have faith, if the man is not already born again, he enters the water of baptism a sinner and comes out of the water a sinner. Yet, there have been times when men who at the time of being baptized in water had the change in their heart, being saved while being baptized.

How about showing me this in the bible.

So do you believe the Word of God is truth? Answer me this. God told Adam that in the day he ate the forbidden fruit he would die. Yet, Adam lived in the flesh hundreds of years after being cast from the garden.

So, is the Word of God wrong or did Adam die in the day he ate the fruit?

he died spiritually.

 

[guanophore]

It is written that grace is the free gift from God. There is a big difference between faith and water baptism.

Only in your mind, heis. The Apostles taught that water baptism is the means by which we respond in faith to God’s free gift of grace, becoming joined to HIm in His death and resurrection.

If a man does not have faith, if the man is not already born again, he enters the water of baptism a sinner and comes out of the water a sinner.

The Catholic Church does not administer baptism without a profession of faith.

Yet, there have been times when men who at the time of being baptized in water had the change in their heart, being saved while being baptized.

I can’t speak to that. It would be considered a sacrilege to baptize an unrepentant sinner.

The Apostles taught that the heart was circumcised in the baptismal waters, where we are joined with Christ in HIs death and resurrection, and marked with the sign of the Spirit, the guarantee of our inheritance.

How about showing me this in the bible.

Col 2:10-13
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him,

The “circumcision made without hands” is accomplished by the HS, at work in baptism. Our hearts are circumcised. In baptism, we are buried with Christ.

Eph 1:12-14
13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Heb 10:22
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water

Water, no matter how “pure” cannot clean an evil conscience. It is the HS, acting upon our hearts in baptism that cleanses and seals us for the day of redemption.

We are sealed with the HS. Eph 4:29-30
30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

So do you believe the Word of God is truth?

Of course! I just do not believe your interpretation of it is the Word of God.

Answer me this. God told Adam that in the day he ate the forbidden fruit he would die. Yet, Adam lived in the flesh hundreds of years after being cast from the garden.

So, is the Word of God wrong or did Adam die in the day he ate the fruit?

A day in the Lord is like 1000 years.

The story of the Garden is about mankind’s fall into sin. The consequences of this sin, visited upon the offspring of Adam and Eve, is a wound that prevents us from being in right relationship with God. This is not the same as personal sin, to which Paul is referring when he comes to know the Law. Human children are born into the world with the conseqeunces of the sin of Adam. They are, by default, sentenced to death. Later, when they reach the age of accountablity, they also become responsible for any personal sins they commit.

Baptism washes away both types of sin.

 

[heiscominginthe]

he died spiritually.

You speak the truth and this is why a must must be reborn, born anew, born again spiritually. For if his spirit in him remains spiritually, if he remains spiritually seperated from God because of sin, and he suffers physical death, because his spirit is dead, because he is spiritually seperated from God, his soul is cast into hell because of unrighteousness.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Only in your mind, heis. The Apostles taught that water baptism is the means by which we respond in faith to God’s free gift of grace, becoming joined to HIm in His death and resurrection.

Wrong. The apostles taught that a man is saved by faith alone.

The Catholic Church does not administer baptism without a profession of faith.

So is the man saved once he makes that profession of faith or once he partakes in water baptism? Did the thief on the cross go to paradise as Jesus promised, even though he did not get baptized by water?

The Apostles taught that the heart was circumcised in the baptismal waters, where we are joined with Christ in HIs death and resurrection, and marked with the sign of the Spirit, the guarantee of our inheritance.

No place does scripture make such a claim. This is what the CC has added. The heart is circumcised by faith. The man believes, repents, and is baptized into Christ through his blood. And his sins are washed away, destroyed, covered over by the blood of the lamb.

Col 2:10-13
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him,

The “circumcision made without hands” is accomplished by the HS, at work in baptism. Our hearts are circumcised. In baptism, we are buried with Christ.

Eph 1:12-14
13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Heb 10:22
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water

Water, no matter how “pure” cannot clean an evil conscience. It is the HS, acting upon our hearts in baptism that cleanses and seals us for the day of redemption.

We are sealed with the HS. Eph 4:29-30
30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Why cannot you discern the diffence between blood and water. As for Heb. 10:22, do you actually believe it is actual water that is pure water that washes our conscience? Or is it the HS? As I stated over and over, water baptism is the symbol of the baptism that saves us, it is not the actual baptism. When a company creates a logo, is the logo the actual company or is it just symbol that represents the company?

A day in the Lord is like 1000 years.

The story of the Garden is about mankind’s fall into sin. The consequences of this sin, visited upon the offspring of Adam and Eve, is a wound that prevents us from being in right relationship with God. This is not the same as personal sin, to which Paul is referring when he comes to know the Law. Human children are born into the world with the conseqeunces of the sin of Adam. They are, by default, sentenced to death. Later, when they reach the age of accountablity, they also become responsible for any personal sins they commit.

Baptism washes away both types of sin.

IT does not say that Adam would die in a thousand years. God told Adam that IN THE DAY he ate the forbidden fruit, he would die, and he did spiritually. To say anything different promotes confusion and that is not of God. God meant what he said, period.

 

[CWBetts]

Wrong. The apostles taught that a man is saved by faith alone.

So is the man saved once he makes that profession of faith or once he partakes in water baptism? Did the thief on the cross go to paradise as Jesus promised, even though he did not get baptized by water?

No place does scripture make such a claim. This is what the CC has added. The heart is circumcised by faith. The man believes, repents, and is baptized into Christ through his blood. And his sins are washed away, destroyed, covered over by the blood of the lamb.

Why cannot you discern the diffence between blood and water. As for Heb. 10:22, do you actually believe it is actual water that is pure water that washes our conscience? Or is it the HS? As I stated over and over, water baptism is the symbol of the baptism that saves us, it is not the actual baptism. When a company creates a logo, is the logo the actual company or is it just symbol that represents the company?

IT does not say that Adam would die in a thousand years. God told Adam that IN THE DAY he ate the forbidden fruit, he would die, and he did spiritually. To say anything different promotes confusion and that is not of God. God meant what he said, period.

You really need to stop prooftexting the Scriptures out of context

 

[jlhargus]

I already asked: what is the Greek word for plunge, dip, immerse, bury? and what is the Greek word for baptize and baptism in the NT, but no one has replied.

JL: Well maybe no one wants to do your work for you. [Mt3:11 I indeed BAPTIZE you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh afer me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall BAPTIZE you with THE HOLY GHOST, AND WITH FIRE.] Tell me on Pentecost when all received the BAPTISM of the HS, were they all immersed in the tongues of fire or did the sign the tongues of fire just touch or settle over the head?

The scripture most often describes baptism as washing and cleaning. Let’s say for argument sake immersion is the only meaning of the word, baptism, and to be baptized is to be immersed in water. So when one comes out of the water, are they then unbaptized since they are no longer immersed in water? Sorta silly isn’t it? The immersion we experience would be immersion into the HS into which one MUST REMAIN IMMERSED or lose his salvation.

I already asked for any ECF(or any ecclesial literature before the 13th century), outside of the Didache and Cyprian, that refers to pouring for baptism, but again received no reply.

JL: I would ask, how many do you need? One would be sufficient. I think the Didache and Cyprian prove the point. Plus I see it has already been answered anyway.

If baptism of infants was equivalent of circumcision at 8 days, we would see it mentioned all over the NT after Pentecost, but there is not a sngle mention.

JL: Why would we see it all over the NT?
Daniel Keeran;5185732:

The Jews did not object to John’s baptism because they were already familiar with the purification ritual of total immersion in running water, such as the mikvah.

JL: Mikvah is a ritual bath for a ritually unclean Jewish person. For instance one who came in contact with a dead body or a woman after her peroid. Also it is a ritual washing of pots and pans. Mikvah did not bring anyone into the Jewish covenant, that would be circumcision. One had to already be in the covenant to do a mikvah.

See above. If so, we would see infants being baptized throughout the NT, and Aristides would have said “when they have children born to them, they baptize them,” We would also see it in Justin Martyr, Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Didache, even Gnostic texts, etc.But nothing.

JL: How do you know what Aristides or anyone else WOULD or SHOULD say? Maybe they just found it unnecessary to mention. I would say the majority of Protestants baptize infant.

1. There is no evidence of infants in the household baptisms in Acts, e.g. Acts 16:34 “The jailer …was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.”

JL: I will use the same logic. There is no evidence of infants not being in the household. [Acts16:31 And THEY SAID, BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, AND THY HOUSE. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and WASHED THEIR STRIPES; AND WAS BAPTIZED, he AND ALL HIS, straightway. 34 AND when he had BROUGHT THEM INTO HIS HOUSE, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, BELIEVING in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSE.]

It appears to me the apostles said in verse 31, AND THY HOUSE, before they even knew who was in his household. Yet they saw no need to clarify, “and thy house except those to young”. By the way it does not say how they were baptized. We can see it was done outside his house in verse 34. In verse 33 he took them, WASHED their stripes, the jailer washed Paul and Silas’ stripes. Note they did not bath their stripes, which would indicate water enough to immerse. After the jailer WASHED them, the jailer and his were baptized. Sorta implies the water was not enough for immersion. Again the scriptures are silent on how. You can only claim immersion thru tradition. For you to say they were immersed, you would be speaking were the scriptures are silent.

A household does not automatically mean there are No infants or small children within. I am not sure, but I think life expectance then, was about 30-35 years on average. In those times people had many children and they lived in extended families, grandparents, children and grandchildren. The probability is greater that there was a young child in at lest one of the households mentioned in scripture, than there was no young child in any mentioned.

Can you name a single ECF who was baptized as an infant? If infant baptism was true from Pentecost onward AND replaced infant circumcision, one could easily find numerous examples among Christian families in early centuries.

JL: It doesn’t matter if any ECF was baptized as an infant, but I see that has been answered also. We don’t find any scripture examples of the grown children of beleivers being baptized either, even as adults. Are we to conclude no child of believers became Christian?

 

[jlhargus]

** 1. You assume the idea of a stain of orginal sin is biblical.**
JL: Original sin is not an actual stain, it is a LACK of the indwelling life of God. Thru this LACK Man is subject to the flesh and all its desires. Man is born with a sin nature so to speak. We must be born again by water and Sprit, receiving the spiritual life of God the HS indwelling. The soul or spiritural nature, then rules over the flesh by the grace of the HS. That struggle between the flesh and spiritual within us is part of our spiritual warfare, we must always struggle to overcome the desires of the flesh, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. [Rm5:18 Then as ONE MAN’S TRESPASS led to CONDEMNATION for ALL MEN so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men 19 For as BY ONE MAN’S DISOBEDIENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous] Note, Condemnation for ALL men, MADE SINNERS, they did not commit personal sin, but WERE MADE SINNERS, bringing condemnation FOR ALL, by one man’s trespass.
Daniel Keeran;5181357:

Baptism is consistently described in scripture as a personal decision.

[1Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. OTHERWISE your CHILDREN would be UNCLEAN, but AS IT IS, THEY ARE HOLY.] So infants cannot be a Christian because they cannot DO, believe, repent. who gives that free gift of faith, doesn’t it come by God’s grace alone. God’s gift of saving grace is freely given by God, then comes what we must DO. It would seem you have left out one of the most important things they must DO, Christ tells us, you MUST be born again, and he tells us how, by water and the Spirit. Baptism brings a child into convenant family relationship with God, just as circumcision did in the old covenant, Paul makes that clear, with baptism being the circumcision of the heart. With your theory circumcision in the OT should have been only for adults. Because those OT adults had to have faith, repent and be circumcised to enter the people of God.

 

[Hisalone]

Originally Posted by jlhargus

JL: The sacrament of Confirmation can be properly called baptism of the Holy Spirit. John the Batpist said Christ would baptize with the HS and fire. When we are born of water and Spirit in water baptism, we are immersed into the HS, born children of God because we receive the very life of God, the indwelling of the HS. The baptism of fire is the Sacrament of Confirmation or baptism of the HS, which corresponds to Pentecoast. CCC 1302, It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

[Acts 1:4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: Do not leave Jerusalem, but WAIT FOR THE GIFT MY FATHER PROMISED, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT. 6…7… 8 But YOU WILL RECEIVE POWER WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT COMES ON YOU; and YOU WILL BE MY WITNESSES in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth] The power and gift was the Holy Spirit, who distributes charims as he determines. [1Cor 12:31 But COVET earnestly THE BEST GIFTS: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.] [1Cor 14:1 FOLLOW THE WAY OF LOVE and EAGERLY DESIRE SPIRITUAL GIFTS, ESPECIALLY the gift of PROPHECY.] [1Cor 12:11 ALL these ARE the WORK OF one and THE SAME SPIRIT, and HE GIVES THEM to each one, JUST AS HE DETERMINES ] [1Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But EVERY MAN HATH HIS PROPER GIFT OF GOD ONE AFTER THIS manner and ANOTHER AFTER THAT, 1Cor 12:7 Now TO EACH ONE the manifestation of THE SPIRIT IS GIVEN FOR THE COMMON GOOD.]

JL again you are in error as IM sure you will not listen to me consult a Charismatic Catholic. The Baptism of the HS in evidence of speaking in tongues does not happen to Catholics at confirmation it happens when they are laid hands upon by other Baptised in the HS believers.

 

[CWBetts]

JL again you are in error as IM sure you will not listen to me consult a Charismatic Catholic. The Baptism of the HS in evidence of speaking in tongues does not happen to Catholics at confirmation it happens when they are laid hands upon by other Baptised in the HS believers.

You are presumtious and rude! It is extrememly arrogant for a non-Catholic to tell a Catholic that he is in error when it comes to Catholic doctrine. Honestly, what makes you think you are so omnicient?