How many times do you hear Christians say that? Now I do not have a problem that in and of itself. If we look at the Psalms, we can see the various psalmists ‘keeping it real’ with their struggles, their pain, their frustration with the prosperity of the wicked and the many questions they have with God in their minds.

However what I do have a problem with is when people like Tonex (pictured below), write blogs like this and other blogs on his MySpace page WARNING!! THESE BLOGS CONTAINS EXPLICIT LANGUAGE.


For those who dont know who Tonex is, he is a grammy nominated, multi awarded ‘gospel’ artist (even though he says he is not a gospel artist but just an artist). From what I understand, he has been through quite a lot like abuse, a divorce and having no money for example. Last year, he wrote a song called ‘The Naked truth’. You can view some of the unsavoury lyrics here. Now admittedly, he did apologise for his outburst after the Naked Truth but what happened between then and now is anybodys guess.

Now if I am honest, a lot of what he is saying is true but at the same time, a lot of it is not and very irresponsible. What I find even more disturbing is

1. This person was a Pastor

2. How many people including christians have written comments celebrating his ‘realness’.

Me, my friend and I am sure others have written a comment on his blog trying to make him see the error of his ways and I have asked him to examine himself to see if he in the faith (2 Cor 13:5) but he has chosen not to approve those comments for publication. I would be able to swallow this better, if he didnt insist that he and God are ‘tight’, if he didnt try to justify everything and if he didnt have a ‘I dont care what anybody thinks’ attitude.

I listened to a podcast interview that Tonex had with Tim Dillinger on his gay ‘christian’ radio station (do a search on Tonex on the website). He now says that Carlton Pearson is his mentor. Carlton is a heretic who preaches the gospel of inclusion which Tonex agrees with. His other mentor is Yvette Flunder who is a lesbian bishop.

Based on everything he has been saying lately and on the podcast as well and lining it up to scripture, I have every right to question his salvation and pray that he will have a correct understanding of the gospel as he has shown that he does not and is self-deceived.

Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. (Ephesians 4:29)

He previously released an album called Oak Park 92105 with a ‘parental advisory explicit lyrics’ sticker on it. As someone mentioned on another blog, there are ways of addressing important issues without using such vulgar language e.g Cross Movement – Catch 22

Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one. (Col 4:6)

Experience, good or bad should NEVER be our primary guide in life, as Tonex seems to be doing listening to various interviews, but it should be scripture and scripture alone. Scripture determines experience and not the other way around.

Lets pray for him, yes, but lets not celebrate his ‘honesty’ as many seem to be doing

Related post

Do you love Christian music more than doctrine?

The sad state of gospel music today

  1. blackreformingkid says:

    “Keeping it real” is possible without cussing up a Force 5 storm. There are folks who may push the boundary [Mark Driscoll comes to mind at times…], but I’m sorry, Mr. Tonex went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far. He needs to repent and apologise to his readers

  2. Justin says:

    I caught a teaching recently from Tye Tribbett that was talking about the same thing as far as “keeping it real”.

    It’s pretty sad, but the verse that comes to my mind is Matthew 7:14 —

    “But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

    Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord, ” is going to heaven!

  3. Alan Higgins says:

    Yep Justin. After listening to him doing more interviews, I have come to the conclusion that he is not saved and he needs to repent and be around people who know sound doctrine. Tonex seems to be making it up as he goes along and going with his feelings as a guide

  4. telltheworld1 says:

    I read Tonex’s blog “The Road Less Travelled” and I was put off by it at first mostly because of the vulgar language. As I kept reading, I remembered this time last year I rededicated my life to Christ.

    Although I had been washed clean by the blood of Jesus and given complete forgiveness by God because I accepted Christ, I still had issues to deal with. I cursed so badly I would probably make you AND Tonex blush, I regularly drank alcohol, I lived in sin with a man who was not my husband, and I had a serious anger problem.

    As I continued to read my Bible and fellowship with other believer’s, I was encouraged to ask the Lord to deliver me from that junk; I was encouraged to repent of my sins, to forgive me, to cleanse me, and to help me not to commit the sins again. I was encouraged to find scriptures that addressed the issues I was dealing with and stand on those scriptures by faith. I am not perfect, but I am striving toward perfection as the Apostle Paul stated (Phillipians 3:10-14).

    I don’t condone Tonex’s use of vulgar, explicit language and strong sexual references at all. When I looked past the language and all the rest, I saw someone who needs to do the same thing I did. Accepting Jesus as Savior and Lord is a journey not a destination. It is also a process.

    Sometimes it is the small decisions in life that promotes growth in our lives as Christians. I see Tonex as someone who is profoundly honest, although his method of expression is unsavory. I see him as someone who needs 1 Corinthians 13 shown to him by mature Christians, he needs spiritual mentorship, and he definitely needs prayer.

    Tonex is a well-known recording artist and he should be much more responsible with how he conducts himself in every area of his life. Even so, we need to be careful as Christians to love people where they are and to help them grow in their walk with the Lord. Instead of bashing Tonex, (someone you nor I personally knows and has no personal interaction with on a regular basis), lets speak the truth in love so that we win people to Christ, not continually repel them from Christ.

  5. Alan Higgins says:

    Thanks telltheworld1 for your contribution on my blog. I agree totally with what you have said and as I stated, I have written to him and told him the truth in love as you stated. Not to push him further down than he is already as he obviously has issues. However the bible does state that we should know a person by their fruits and we do not always have to know a person personally because out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. You only have to listen to his interview with Tim Dillinger and his interview at http://www.thespiritofhiphop.com/index.php?spirit=interviews (not sure how long it will stay up there) and he is WAAAAAY off the mark. The fact is the truth will offend and for some it will repel them from Christ because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness

  6. Daniel says:

    i remember getting really grieved and frustrated by tonex when i found out about him during the summer. seems like things are only getting worse.

  7. King's Kid says:

    The most unfortunate part of this matter is that the commenter’s are young and perishing because of “lack of knowledge”. And we all are partially accountable for this condition. With as many people in this nation alone, that profess christendom ( I can’t even say C********y) that take pride in the knowledge that they have the favor, giftings, and the spirit, of the LORD that they claim to love and that loves them unconditionally, there is no way that the devil should be winning the battles (we true believers know that he has lost the war) that are being handed to him in today’s society.

    God is not pleased. Just think about it, His so-called followers are bringing shame to His name while we concern ourselves with all of the nonsensical issues that we find ourselves involved in. Who is there to teach the truth? Who is there to lead by example? Who is there that believes you should fear the Lord? Who are their role models? Who is raising them? Have we forgotten that they are our future?
    The future looks extremely bleak. I speak in terms of this and future generations.

    It is so spooky to me, my friend, I could cry, for real. I am serious we need to practice being intercessors, our children are targeted by an enemy that we have allowed to creep in while we were unaware (doing our thing). Is that not the “mantra of the day”?

    We have got to pray, and let the Truth of God’s Word be told.


  8. cooper says:

    I was only able to listen to the first half of the interview (I couldn’t take any more of ersatz Tonéx’s after he talked about GOD and in the same breath used profane language). I understand that some things on the BET interview were taken out of context and that’s enough to anger anyone; no one wants to be played for a fool. Point is the producers of that interview did what they did and he’s making himself look worse. His “trying to be surreptitious and leave things to the imagination” made him appear corrupt and inappropriate. I completely agree with telltheworld1 (btw its crazy how much alike our spiritual struggles are!!!), he’s needs to be put back on the right track. I just hope he finds someone to help him do it before GOD decides to break him down and build him up all over again.

  9. destiny8 says:

    I am shocked that this is happening with Tonex. I feel we need to really pray for him. I was hurt by the church and know how he feels. I can see why he would start believing other doctrines because he’s hurt by the church.

  10. J says:

    It is outrageously weird that some fundamentalists call Christian universalism and open theism “heresies” (especially when one considers that open theism is more in keeping with the concept of a dialectical God found in Judaism—Judaism being the religion of Jesus !)

    Nowhere do any of the verses of the bible state that universalism , nor open theism are any “heresies” .

    As a NON-fundamentalist Christian , I will always hope and pray that eventually every person will be redeemed by Jesus –or if not redeemed perhaps remediated). There may be some people who persist in some immoral behavior so tenaciously and severly that their souls may have to be destroyed partially and then have the elements of their souls reconstructed later –or their spirit somehow redeemed without the soul ..(perhaps serial killers and such might be included in such a prospect) .

    Thank Jesus for universalist theologians !

    Here below I am posting two articles that make the case that the use of terms like ‘heresy’ and ‘heretic’ in the New Testament epistles–should NOT be interpreted in the broad way that many ultra-Fundamentalists do…

    The case is made that since in the epistles of Paul , where words such as ‘heresies’ and ‘heretic’ appear in the text…nowhere does Paul state explictly which specific doctrines are to be considered heretical , and since the only place in the bible scriptures where there is anything close to a definition of “heresy” is in the epistle of 2 Peter, where the author refers to people , ‘denying the Lord that bought them’ and NOT to Christian Universalism , open theism , or every form of unusual doctrine , but specifically to denying the Lord…and so the broad accusations that such and such a doctrine is “heresy” (that many ultra-Fundamentalists like to cast around) are playing fast and loose with the text .

    Furthermore, the doctrines of Fundamentalism are not on every point “orthodox Christianity” . True orothodox Christianity is more in keeping with the Eastern Orthodox sect—NOT the doctrines promoted by lousy theologians like John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon ect. Gregory of Nyssa and a number of the early church fathers supported universalism .

    I see that some have posted words to the effect that they were going to pray that Carlton Pearson stop supporting universalism and support a fundamentalist outlook . That is disgusting !

    In light of how Jesus taught that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive’ and how that applies even to salvation , please do not pray that I become a fundamentalist. If it turns out that an ultra-Fundamentalist deity is running the universe (a different Deity than the Father of the Jesus who gave us the sermon on the mount)—then me becoming a fundamentalist and going to a fundamentalist heaven while other people (even nice people) are being tortured endlessly for not praying a Christian prayer prior to bodily death ..I would regard as a worse state of affairs than me being sent to a hell of fire and brimstone . It would be outrageously selfish for me to go to a fundamentalist sort of heaven —if there are people being tortured for an endless period of years .

    If an ultra-Fundamentalist wants to send people to a fire and brimstone hell (or “allow” them to go there) where people are endlessly tortured —even nice people—then I’d just as soon rather try to persuade such a deity to to torture me instead *in the fire brimstone forever , rather than them and let the other people out of such a hell. If such an ultra-Fundamentalist deity maintains that such persons who have died without converting to Christianity are unworthy of heaven because of their sin or belief , then they could still be let out of that hell and sent to some other place that is *neither heaven nor a painfull variety of hell —that does not have any of the pleasures of heaven and yet does not have the pain and sufferring of hell—a neutral place of endless tedious boredom , or embarassment maybe .

    Those ultra-fundamentalists, who would be disappointed in Jesus, if Jesus eventually saved everyone, remind one of the weird atitude by the people in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard who were disappointed that the people who were hired at the last hour were given the same wage as those who worked all day long and endured the heat of the day .

  11. J says:

    NOTE: Though I am defending Rev.Pearson, I lean towards a different version of Christian universalism then he does —one that does have the hope that eventually all will make some sort of confession in Jesus —that every toungue shall confes that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father .


    In this present era especially , there is a lot of talk in some sectarian groups–especially Fundamentalist protestant groups and in some anti-progressive factions of Catholicism about so-called “heresy” and “heretics” . What’s odd is that in some of these religious factions –especially Fundamentalist factions to label some notions “heretical” apparently because these notions seem way too exotic or way too unusual , even though some of the beliefs supported by such Fundamentalist pundits and theologians were, at one time in history, themselves called “heresy” by many of the other earler dominant churches when these religious movements, to which these Fundamentalists belong, emerged .

    An example: the practice of the Baptist denomination to baptize people as adults when they had made more of an inquiry into what Baptism meant about 3 or 4 centuries ago –when the Baptist sect was young–was condemmed as a heresy by the earlier dominant church denominationsin Europe.

    It is also quite hazy as to whether a lot of the hunters who object to so-called heresy have any fixed criteria for deciding if some notion is heresy or not. Calvinists and those factions of Arminian /Protestants who believe in free will (and are ALSO fundamentalists) tend to regard the doctrines promoted by each other as alternative forms of Christianity –the Calvinists disagree with Arminian doctrine and vice versa (but with perhaps a few odd exceptions) don’t call each other heretics, yet might call other doctrines so-called “heresies” like open theism (to give an example) or say elements of the Charismatic movement -to give another example .

    Jesus in the gospels never uses the word ‘heresy’ . Jesus denounces some people for being NON-consistent.. having internal contradictions in beliefs and attitudes, and/or for being petty , superficial , venal /greedy, NOT for having some exotic theology ! Though Jesus is fond of pointing out internal inconsistency in the beliefs that some people express , he does NOT in the gospels show any desire to support some doctrinal ” correctness” as any goal for its own sake .

    Jesus criticizes the false prophets not for teaching unusual doctrine , but instead for fostering unethical conduct . The difference between a true prophet and a false prophet was a true prophet produced good fruits and false prophet bad fruits .

    St.Paul uses the term ‘heretic’ in the epistle to Titus , but does NOT define a list of doctrines that make a person a heretic or make up ‘heresy’. Thus it is presumptuous to claim support from St.Paul for the broad use of the term ‘heresy’ that many Fundamentalists and some factions of Catholics like to bandy around .

    The only time the word ‘heresies’ gets anything almost like a definition is when in the New Testament epistle called 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 2 which describes heresy as ‘denying the Lord that bought them’, and NOT in the broad sense that the word ‘heresy’ is used today. Thus, according to 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 2, the term ‘heresies’ specifically refers to denying the Lord. It does NOT in that verse have a broad application of applying to each and every exotic or unusual doctrine or belief .

    In the book of Revelation, there is a particular doctrine that is villified called ‘the doctrine of the Nicolotaines’ (Revelation 2:15) . However, according to many of the early church fathers like Iranaeaus , the doctrine of the Nicolataines was rejected and opposed by the author of Revelation out of an objection that was more basic , inasmuch as the Nicolaitaines were anti-nomians (i.e. hedonists) of a sort who espoused wild sexual promiscuity and also eating foods set aside to be devoted to polytheistic pagan idols . Hence, the opposition in the book of Revelation was NOT based on some sort of doctrinal groupthink which sought to reject notions because they were too exotic–but, instead, out of ethical objections having to do more with personal conduct and also a disapproval of accepting polytheistic practices .

    It is interesting to note that in Phillipians I :15-18, St. Paul acknowleges that those in the Christian community which were against Paul as leader were, nonetheless, preaching the same Jesus and rejoiced in that they were doing so .

  12. J says:


    NOTE: The following article is taken from an exchange which took place about 3 years ago on a Myspace forum— regarding the interpretation of bible verses sometimes claimed in support of a rather broad and loose interpretation of the term “heresy” —with the phrasing of the original comments I posted edited for better phrasing with some addenta .

    Other Person in The Debate : Don’t forget the anathema declaration in Gal. ch. 1. It pretty much sums up the concept of a “different gospel”. Paul is asserting his apostalic authority against heresy, particularly those calling for circumcision. We are also exorted to take a stand for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Being a “saint” or an “apostle” has lead to extreme views of control and credal formulae, but the idea of heresy is definitely applied by the apostles, church fathers, and those who rebelled against them.

    THE RESPONSE : Actually it is dubious that the references to a different gospel or ‘another Jesus’ in Galatians refer broadly to any doctine that is unusual or very exotic , as many ultra- fundamentalists might claim . The reference to ‘another Jesus’ or “another gospel” could have very well referred to someone proclaiming another man other than Jesus is messiah . As you point out, the letter of Paul to the Galatians was particularly concerned with those factions of the early Christian community who attempted to promote the belief that one HAD to be circumcized or one could not be a follower of Jesus –a belief that Paul rejects in Galatians

    To claim that the part that warns against following another gospel applies to every belief that is considered exotic or novel, is a broad interpretation that is NOT warranted by the explicit wording of the verses in Galatians !

    In Galatians, the primary opponents that Paul addresses are the faction of the early Christian community that promote circumcision as a requirement for being a follower of Jesus , to apply that warning to any exotic doctrine (as many Fundamentalists often do these days) is conjecture and goes beyond the explicit words of the text . The basic concern of the gospel that Paul was promoting was salvation from sin by the grace of the sacrifice of Jesus–and not by the doing of ritualistic works like circumcision .

    (Paul, elsewhere in other epistles like Phillipians, takes a more ecumenical approach, accepting those in the Christian movement who disputed him on some matters of doctrine as still preaching the same jesus and serving the same God even though they disagreed with Paul strongly) .

    Take, for example, those in Phillipians chapter :1 verses 14-18 who Paul reports were against his leadership .

    In Phillipians 1:16 , Paul

    ‘ The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds ‘

    Notice that Paul refers to these people as preaching Christ ‘of contention ‘ –contention apparently towards Paul himself rejecting the authority of Paul as a leader . And yet Paul believes that these same people who reject the authority Paul as a leader were preaching the same Jesus as he was . He even rejoices that these people that reject the authority of Paul as a leader are preaching Jesus .

    In Phillipians 1:18 Paul writes,

    ‘What then?nothwithstanding , every way, whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached; and therein I do rejoice, and will rejoice ‘.

    That Paul has authority as an apostolic leader was a marginal doctrine that Paul promotes –even in one epistle writing to the community where he states ,

    ‘be ye followers of me as I am of Christ’ .

    And yet Paul does NOT emphasize the doctrine of himself having authority as being as important a doctrine as say , the resurrection and atonement of Jesus . Furthermore, he is willing to rejoice when those that disagree with his authority still preach Jesus (as in Phillipians) and does NOT refer to them as “heretics” nor does he claim they are preaching a ‘different gospel’ .

    Paul in another letter Romans chapters 14 verses 1-6 he accepts those in the ‘christian community’ that follow the holy days and dietary rules (apparently of Judaism ) as serving God JUST AS MUCH as those who claim that under grace they are free from such dietary rules –thus allowing for an ecumenical approach in regard to that area of doctrine .In Romans 14:5 he wrote ,

    ‘let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind ‘ .

    You , sir, mentioned the church fathers .

    Apparently many of the people who have studied the writings of the Church fathers –have come to the conclusion that the primary factions that the New Testament letters warn about false doctrines were the legalizers and the anti-nomian factions . The legalizers taught that the ceremonial law (and NOT just the moral law) of the first 5 Mosaic books were required for being a follower of Jesus . It is the legalizers to which Paul addresses in Galatians .

    The anti-nomians, in contrast, promoted the belief that because Jesus had presented God’s grace (instead of mere ceremonial law) as a means of relating to God, that it was somehow then okay to throw away the moral law as well and engage in wild sex -even extramarital sex and wild hedonism without much restraint on conduct .

    It is the anti-nomians that are alluded to apparently in some of the writings of the very early church fathers . That sheds apparent light on the warnings in the epistle called Jude about ungodly men ‘turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness’ and in the New Testament epistle 2 Peter, of “false teachers” –as well as the warnings against the warnings in the epistle of 2 Timothy about those that “will not endure sound doctrine” and have “itching ears” and be ‘turned unto fables’ . It is the anti-nomain factions –sexual perverts and those that forbid marriage that 2 Timothy warns about –NOT anyone that has an unusual doctrine –NOT open theists, , charismatics ect .

    Hence 2 Timothy 3:6 describes people who ,

    “creep into houses and lead captive silly women captive with sins , led away with divers lusts. ” .

    1 Timothy also warns against those who forbid others to marry .(see 1 Timothy 4 :3)

    Apparently the verse in the book of Revelation also that warns against , ‘the doctrine of the Nicolaitans’ (Revelation 2:15) is, according to church fathers like Iraneaus , directed at the anti-nomians that had been followers of a man named Nicolas. He apparently had advocated liberated sex and going to feasts devoted to polytheistic idols (aka to commit fornication and eat things sacrificed to idols) .

    Thus, much of the concern about false doctrines can be more plausibly interpreted as being about doctrines by legalizing factions and factions of the early church that promoted sexual immorality and hedonism —and NOT about exotic theology (that so many of the fundamentalist heresy hunters are against) .

    It is indeed bizarre that many Fundamentalists, Calvinists and so on try and apply such warnings about ‘heresy’ and give them broad interpretation towards theological doctrines and beliefs they find exotic (such as open theism .open theism,. by the way, is more in keeping with the concept of God in Judaism as being open to dialectic with created beings . And Jesus is very Jewish ) .

    Jesus in the gospels when he speaks of false prophets uses a moral criteria and NOT a criteria of “doctrinal correctness” as a means of explaining how you can tell true prophets from false prophets . In Matthew 7:18 he teaches,

    ‘a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit ‘.

    Jesus in the gospels takes a very ecumenical approach –accepting some of those who chose to remain outside the community of his own apostles as still serving the kingdom of God . In Mark 9:38 John tells Jesus that there was one casting out devils in his name and how he and the other disciples ‘forbade him for he followeth not us’.

    Jesus then told him in the next verse , forbid him not’ and in Mark 9:40 added ,

    ‘He that is not against us is on our part’ .

    Jesus in the gospels did NOT say anything to support the heresy hunting that many Fundamentalists support at all .

    In Matthew 25: verses 31-46 , the criteria that Jesus said would separate the blessed from the accursed was NOT any doctrinal theological “correctness” for its own sake, but instead whether or not a person showed kindness to those who he called ‘the least of his bretheren’ . The ultimate criteria according to Jesus that separated the sheep from the goats was NOT whether they believed in doctrines like baptism by immersion , the impassibility of God , the authority of the apostles, the protestant canon , total depravity , or any of the doctrines that Calvinists and other Fundamentalists allege to be such paramount doctrines , but instead whether they fed, gave drink, clothed, welcomed , visited those that Jesus called ‘the least of the bretheren ‘ .

    That is NOT to say that Matthew 25 taught redemption by works , but rather that Jesus taught that following him and God involved making a conscious effort to show kindness to the destitute out of a pure principle of charity — and also NOT expecting any reward for doing so .

    Note that in Matthew 25:37-40 , the people who Jesus calls blessed are apparently suprised they served Jesus in helping the least of the brethren . They ask questions like ‘when did we you hungry and give you something to eat ?, when saw you a stranger and take you in? ‘ et al.

    Are these questions that Jesus predicts the blessed people will ask in Matthew 25 rhetorical questions or earnest questions ?

    If they are earnest questions then that suggests that these people (which Jesus calls blessed) do these acts of charity *without expecting any reward for doing so at all , but do so to serve a principle of kindness towards the unfortunate . That further indicates that a person having the “heart” (disposition) directed toward kindness to the unfortunate is more important a criteria to Jesus than doctrinal correctness when such doctrinal “correctness” is conceived apart from the more purely ethical considerations .

    The irony is that the people in the story of Matthew who give unto the least of the bretheren did so , not to avoid some unpleasant torture in some hell nor to gain litertalized rewards in some paradise but did so sheerly out of kindness ..charity , for after all they did not fully realize that by feeding , visiting , giving shelter to the least of the believers in Jesus they were indirectly giving to Jesus too .

    In the New Testament epistle called I John sums up what is most important in terms of the teaching of Jesus that the epistle calls ‘his commandments’ .

    ‘ And this is his commandment that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as he gave us commandment ‘.

    Thus, in the epistle called I John, the basic tenet of belief is indeed a very basic tenet and believing the gospel is NOT equated with a lengthy list of doctrinally correct beliefs that heresy hunting sectarians claim !

  13. t says:

    This clearly illustrates in 2 peter 2:1 how there will be false prophets
    1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

    However I disagree with some of you when you say all everyone will eventually repent. Like someone else said. The way to destruction is wide and the way to God is narrow. To go to heaven though you must first recieve the holyspirit with the evidence of tongues, as shown in Acts 2
    Acts 2
    1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

    2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

    3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

    4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

    5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

    6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

    7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

    8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

    9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

    10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

    11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

    12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

    13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

    14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

    15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

    16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

    17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

    18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

    19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

    20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

    21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    I am apostolic and you must have the holyspirit to be saved. You first repent then you begin to sincerly worship. It is during this time the holyghost enters you begin to talk in other tongues. This is simply when God changes the language of worship. It is a great experience. After this your life is changed and you begin to speak in tongues more often. You then have power, to cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, and much more. You guys talk about being fundamentalists. When the lord comes to take up his bride, it only the true christians, who have the holyghost and have been baptized in Jesus name, and have lived a holy life will be brought up. The rest of people will be left on earth to face the great tribulation. You must be saved!

  14. Alan Higgins says:

    T, thanks for your comments. However, I must disagree with you on this one. There is nowhere in the bible that says that if you do not speak in tongues, you cannot be saved.

    • t says:

      This not true. In John 3: 5-7 Jesus sais

      Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

      6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

      7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

      The born of the water is being baptized in water, but the born of the spirit is being baptized with the holyghost. Without being baptized with these two things you cannot enter the kingdom of God. You must be born again.

  15. Alan Higgins says:

    So what happened to the thief on the cross? He wasnt baptised. Read 1 Cor 12 and it is clear that all will not speak in tongues. It is just one of MANY gifts. If our salvation is based on us speaking on tongues or being baptized, then it becomes a work and we are not saved by works. Also how have you come to the conclusion that ‘being born of water’ means being baptised? Have you used eisigesis and read something INTO a text?

    In 1 Corinthians 1:17, the bible says that “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,”. he has made the gospel different than baptism and not one of the same

  16. t says:

    First of all this method of salvation was not used before jesus died. it was only after the day of pentecost spoken about in acts that this was neccessary to go to heaven. Before jesus died people got saved by the old testament method now we live by the new testament method.

    Again speaking in tongues is not a work. It cannot be becase it is not of your own accord. It is god taking control of your tongues, and again you are missing the big picture. Speaking in tongues is only evidence of receiving the holyghost. It is a chain effect. Without the holyghost you cannot go to heaven, in recieving the holyghost you speak in tongues, therefore if you don’t speak in tongues then you don’t have the holyghost and you cannot go to heaven.

    Baptizing is not a work, it is a mandate given by god to symbolize the washing away of sins. However this alone will not guarantee a ticket to heaven. You need to live a holy life, and you need to do these things to live a holy life.

    Also 1 corithians 12 talks about something completely different. It talks about the gifts of healing, faith , interpretation,and tongues. However the gift of tongues is different. When a person has the gift of tongues, it is simply when god speaks to an assembly through a person who has the holyghost in the form of an unknown language or tongues. Then someone who has the gift of interpretation then interprets whats being said to the assembly.

    Lastly In using 1 Corinthians 1:17, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,”. to prove your point takes it entirely out of context the surrounding verses of this text say,

    For it hath been declared unto, my brethen, by them which are of the house of chloe, that there are contentions among you.

    “Now this I say, that everyone of you saith I am of Paul ;and I of Apollod;and I of Cephas ;and I of christ,

    Is christ divided ?was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of paul?

    I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; ‘

    Lest any should say that I had baptized in the mine own name.

    And I baptized also the household of stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

    For christ sent me not to baptize but to preache the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of christ should be made of none effect”

    The excerpt you used was a direct response to the talk about baptizing in the name of paul. He was saying he is not christ and was not the one who died for our sins, therefore they should baptize in jesus name. When Paul sais I come not to baptize, he simply means his name should not be used to baptize with. He is saying he is not jesus and he was sent to preach the gospel.

    What do you believe you need to do to achieve salvation? i am curious.

  17. Alan Higgins says:

    In a nutshell, to be saved a person needs to repent of their sins and put their trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation. (See https://realchristianity.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/what-is-the-good-news-of-the-gospel)

    When a person becomes a christian, they automatically receive the Holy Spirit because a person cannot become a christian without Him. This does not mean that they automatically have to speak in tongues. In fact 1 cor 12:27-30 makes it clear that NOT all will speak in tongues but that it was just one of many gifts. Look at the context and it is talking about people having different gifts but when the body of Christ comes together it is for the commn good

  18. t says:

    You quote 1 Corinthians 12:30 in an attempt to prove that not all speak in tongues when they are filled with the Spirit: “Do all speak with tongues?”

    However, this verse refers to the gift of tongues, that is, speaking a public message in tongues to be interpreted for the congregation, which is a spiritual gift that a person may exercise subsequent to the infilling of the Spirit. Though both tongues as the inital evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost and tongues as a later spiritual gift are the same in essence, they are different in administration and operation. For example, the regulations regarding the gift of tongues in I Corinthians 14:27-28 did not apply to the conversion accounts in Acts, where many people spoke in tongues simultaneously, without interpretation, as the sign of being filled with the Spirit.

    You may question this distinction between the initial use of tongues at the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the later use of tongues as a spiritual gift in a Christian’s life. But the same distinction is apparent with regard to faith. To be saved, everyone must have faith (John 3:16; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 2:8). Yet I Corinthians 12:9 reveals that there is a special, supernatural gift of faith that can operate in a Spirit-filled person’s life over and beyond the faith necessary for salvation. Saving faith and the spiritual gift of faith are the same in essence but different in administration and operation.

    In speaking about the birth of the Spirit, Jesus emphasized the uniformity of the experience: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). Moreover, Jesus placed emphasis upon the accompanying sound, not on sight or feeling. The sound of the wind blowing is evidence of its presence.

    Some people conclude that Jesus referred only to “the sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind” on the Day of Pentecost. But this sound of wind is never mentioned again in the later accounts of receiving the Holy Ghost, while speaking in tongues is. Speaking in tongues by itself caused the Jewish Christians to recognize that the experience of the Gentiles at Caesarea was identical to theirs on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 10:44-47; 11:15-17). Hence, the important, conclusive evidence of the Spirit’s manifestation at Pentecost was speaking in other tongues. The sound of wind was impersonal, but the speaking was personal. Speaking in tongues was the first evidence of each individual infilling.

    At Caesarea all who heard the Word were filled, and all who heard the Word spoke in tongues. If some of them had not spoken in tongues, would the Jewish Christians have accepted their experiences? Clearly not. All twelve men mentioned in Acts 19:6 had a uniform experience. If ten of the twelve had spoken in tongues and the other two had not, would Paul have believed that the two had received the Holy Ghost just as the ten? Certainly not. Paul would not have accepted their experience if they have failed to exhibit the uniform evidence.

    If you have not spoken in tongues I am sorry to say you do not have the holyspirit. you have been warned

    In case you want to ever visit my church here is the address
    8928 Parsons Blvd, Jamaica, NY, 11432 | Phone: 718-657-7699
    It is All nations Apostolic Tabernacle acrross from the ymca

    In fact we are having a tent crusade during october 4 -31 at the corner Brookville Blvd and Merrick Blvd we will be there

    Evening Service -at 6:30 p.m

    Youth Prayer – 6:30 p.m
    Bible Study – 7:30 p.m
    Youth Service- 6:30
    come if you want to experience true holyghost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s