Assembly of God and Tongues

[StanJ]

You clearly didn't read Mounce's definition very thoroughly:

Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament:

καινός (kainos)
Strong: G2537
GK: G2785
new, recently made, Mt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; new in species, character, or mode, Mt. 26:28, 29; Mk. 14:24, 25; Lk. 22:20; Jn. 13:34; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:15; 4:24; 1 Jn. 2:7; Rev. 3:12; novel, strange, Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19; new to the possessor, Mk. 16:17; unheard of, unusual, Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19; met. renovated, better, of higher excellence, 2 Cor. 5:17; Rev. 5:9​

As a matter fact I read it very thoroughly which is why I showed all the connotations. The tongue is still new to the possessor but is also new as far as a tongue is concerned and that it had never been hurt before. They are makes the same comments in his definition;
new
as respects form
recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
as respects substance
of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of

The tongues are new regardless of who speaks them.

 

[StanJ]

'Burying ones head in the sand' is a phrase that comes to mind.

Spiritual discernment would be more apropos in this case.

 

[swordsman1]

There has been no evidence to the contrary, just the misrepresentation of facts. If you want to walk away from this, that of course is your prerogative.

You have provided no credible evidence to support your theory, and what little evidence you have supplied has been refuted eg your mistake about the meaning of 'new tongues'. Even though you have been presented with substantial evidence that contradicts your theory, including the conclusions of all the leading charismatic theologians, you still doggedly cling to it. As it is rather like reasoning with a brick wall, then yes I guess I will have to leave you to it.

Being baptized in the Holy Spirit is shown by the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.

Amazing. From this verse...

"And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;"​

..you conclude that Paul was speaking glossolalia. I really am wasting my time.

Are you assuming there were no Gentiles in Samaria?

You were then one making the assertion there were Gentiles speaking in tongues in Acts 8.

but clearly something happened to indicate the same and that they had received the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but you are just guessing in asserting it was tongues. The text doesn't say that.

Wrong. Paul said into what were you baptized when you believed. John's baptism was just as Paul said, to believe in Jesus. They were Disciples of Jesus whom they believed in. They then received the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues and prophesy. That is the main point here but of course you're more than willing to deflect and strive about all these words in order to obscure what was really going on.

No. Simply receiving John's baptism of repentance didn't make them Christians. You have to know about Christ. Only when Paul spoke to them about Christ did they believe and receive the Holy Spirit.

Rom 8:9 "And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ."​

 

[swordsman1]

As a matter fact I read it very thoroughly which is why I showed all the connotations. The tongue is still new to the possessor but is also new as far as a tongue is concerned and that it had never been hurt before. They are makes the same comments in his definition;
new
as respects form
recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
as respects substance
of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of

The tongues are new regardless of who speaks them.

You need to learn how to use a lexicon. When a word has multiple meanings Mounce gives example verses for each meaning. So,

καινός (kainos)
Strong: G2537

GK: G2785

new, recently made, .......as in: Mt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22;

new in species, character, or mode, .......as in: Mt. 26:28, 29; Mk. 14:24, 25; Lk. 22:20; Jn. 13:34; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:15; 4:24; 1 Jn. 2:7; Rev. 3:12;

novel, strange, .......as in: Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19;

new to the possessor, ...... as in: Mk. 16:17;

unheard of, unusual, .......as in: Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19;

met. renovated, better, of higher excellence, .......as in: 2 Cor. 5:17; Rev. 5:9​

 

[StanJ]

You have provided no credible evidence to support your theory, and what little evidence you have supplied has been refuted eg your mistake about the meaning of 'new tongues'. Even though you have been presented with substantial evidence that contradicts your theory, including the conclusions of all the leading charismatic theologians, you still doggedly cling to it. As it is rather like reasoning with a brick wall, then yes I guess I will have to leave you to it.

All you're doing is repeating yourself and making the same unproven claims.

Amazing. From this verse...

"And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;"​

..you conclude that Paul was speaking glossolalia. I really am wasting my time.

That's right, because being baptized in the Holy Spirit always accompanied by speaking in tongues. You should really try to pay attention.

You were then one making the assertion there were Gentiles speaking in tongues in Acts 8.

There were but feel free to prove otherwise.

Yes, but you are just guessing in asserting it was tongues. The text doesn't say that.

It implies that, based on the precedant of all the other times the Holy Spirit was imparted and people spoke in tongues. You apparently don't know how to use the Bible to interpret the Bible except when it suits you?

No. Simply receiving John's baptism of repentance didn't make them Christians. You have to know about Christ. Only when Paul spoke to them about Christ did they believe and receive the Holy Spirit.

Rom 8:9 "And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ."​

They did know about Jesus, through John, which is probably the same way you know Jesus, through whoever told you.
Or did you discover Jesus through Jesus himself? Have you been baptized in the Holy Spirit?

 

[StanJ]

You need to learn how to use a lexicon. When a word has multiple meanings Mounce gives example verses for each meaning. So,

καινός (kainos)
Strong: G2537

GK: G2785

new, recently made, .......as in: Mt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22;

new in species, character, or mode, .......as in: Mt. 26:28, 29; Mk. 14:24, 25; Lk. 22:20; Jn. 13:34; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:15; 4:24; 1 Jn. 2:7; Rev. 3:12;

novel, strange, .......as in: Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19;

new to the possessor, ...... as in: Mk. 16:17;

unheard of, unusual, .......as in: Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19;

met. renovated, better, of higher excellence, .......as in: 2 Cor. 5:17; Rev. 5:9​

Well if you mean learning it the way you use it then I'm afraid that would be unlearning it. They are examples but they're not limited to that one example. All connotations that fit apply. Course you conveniently disregard what Thayer had to say. I don't play Greek and English against one another and only use either or when it suits me as you do. No time would be new to Jesus, seeing as he was God incarnate, except the new tongue that these people would speak for the first time because it came from the spirit and would never have been heard before, not even by God.

 

[swordsman1]

Well if you mean learning it the way you use it then I'm afraid that would be unlearning it. They are examples but they're not limited to that one example. All connotations that fit apply. Course you conveniently disregard what Thayer had to say. I don't play Greek and English against one another and only use either or when it suits me as you do. No time would be new to Jesus, seeing as he was God incarnate, except the new tongue that these people would speak for the first time because it came from the spirit and would never have been heard before, not even by God.

Okay....

 

[Monk Brendan]

Assembly of God believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are they right?

I spent some time in the Assemblies of God, and yes, it is a doctrine of their faith. For them the Trinity is Father, Son, and the Holy Spiritwiththeinitialevidenceofspeakingintongues. (all one word)

That puts God in such a box. If He wants one person to begin prophesying, or any other of the gift, instead of tongues, then He can.

 

[StanJ]

I spent some time in the Assemblies of God, and yes, it is a doctrine of their faith. For them the Trinity is Father, Son, and the Holy Spiritwiththeinitialevidenceofspeakingintongues. (all one word)
That puts God in such a box. If He wants one person to begin prophesying, or any other of the gift, instead of tongues, then He can.

If Jesus didn't appreciate the Pharisees abusing the Holy Spirit but I'm sure he doesn't appreciate you abusing the name of the Holy Spirit.
You should actually read 1st Corinthians 14:29-33, to see the error in your statement here. There are of course many Mysteries to God but this is not one that is because he deigned to have us understand the nature of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with putting God in a box because as we all know God is Spirit and nothing can contain him.

 

[Monk Brendan]

If Jesus didn't appreciate the Pharisees abusing the Holy Spirit but I'm sure he doesn't appreciate you abusing the name of the Holy Spirit

Forgive me, but I was not trying to abuse the Name of the Holy Spirit. I was proclaiming my reaction to the silliness of expecting God to fill a little box, "It must be done THIS way, and no other." You cannot put God in a box, by telling Him what gift of the Holy Spirit MUST come first.

 

[StanJ]

Forgive me, but I was not trying to abuse the Name of the Holy Spirit. I was proclaiming my reaction to the silliness of expecting God to fill a little box, "It must be done THIS way, and no other." You cannot put God in a box, by telling Him what gift of the Holy Spirit MUST come first.

I understand, but that is not what they are doing. They are establishing their own Doctrine based on the precedent that they see in the book of Acts. All but one of the events of baptism of the Holy Spirit indicate the tongues immediately followed the infilling. The one that doesn't say tongues was spoken it does indicate that Simon the Sorcerer knew that they did receive the Holy Spirit, so we can deduce that was based on him hearing them speaking in tongues.

 

[All4Christ]

I understand, but that is not what they are doing. They are establishing their own Doctrine based on the precedent that they see in the book of Acts. All but one of the events of baptism of the Holy Spirit indicate the tongues immediately followed the infilling. The one that doesn't say tongues was spoken it does indicate that Simon the Sorcerer knew that they did receive the Holy Spirit, so we can deduce that was based on him hearing them speaking in tongues.

And yet, Paul clearly states that not all have the gift of tongues (diversity of gifts).

8 To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.
-1 Corinthians 12:8-11 (NRSV)

Seems pretty clear to me. Acts isn't the only book describing the Early Church, and Paul's epistles are just as authoritative as Acts.

ETA: I am very familiar with the AoG beliefs, as I grew up in the AoG church for 20+ years.

 

[Biblicist]

And yet, Paul clearly states that not all have the gift of tongues (diversity of gifts).

When Paul says that not all will speak in tongues or prophecy etc within 1 Cor 12, he is speaking within the context of the Church meeting, where some people (who can undoubtedly pray in the Spirit) will choose not to speak in tongues and interpret. Quite often those who have chosen to prophesy will leave tongues and interpretation to others.

 

[swordsman1]

When Paul says that not all will speak in tongues or prophecy etc within 1 Cor 12, he is speaking within the context of the Church meeting, where some people (who can undoubtedly pray in the Spirit) will choose not to speak in tongues and interpret. Quite often those who have chosen to prophesy will leave tongues and interpretation to others.

Paul is not speaking about meetings. Meetings are not mentioned at all in Chapter 12. He is talking about the body of Christ, the universal church. The context makes that clear.

1 Cor 12:27 "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."​

The answer to each of the rhetorical questions in v 29-30 is No.
Are all Apostles? No, not everyone is an Apostle.
Are all prophets? No, not everyone is a prophet.
Are all teachers? No, not everyone is a teacher.
Do all work miracles? No, not everyone is a miracle worker.
Do all have gifts of healing? No, not everyone has the gift of healing.
Do all speak in tongues? No, not everyone speaks in tongues.

In fact Paul goes to great pains to emphasize that members of the body of Christ do not all have the same gifts:

Romans 12:4-7 "For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach;"​

1 Cor 12:8-10 "To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues."​

1 Cor 12:17-20 "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body."​

 

[Biblicist]

Paul is not speaking about meetings. Meetings are not mentioned at all in Chapter 12. He is talking about the body of Christ, the universal church. The context makes that clear.

How interesting indeed!

As much as I fully understand that the hard core cessationist worldview compels its adherents to regularly deny what should be obvious to everyone, I am still a bit surprised that you have failed to recognise that the context of what Paul is saying is set within the assembly of the Saints, or as we would say, the local Church meeting.

Even though Paul is establishing some correctives for the Church when it comes to the ministry of the Holy Spirit within chapters 12, 13 & 14, his admonitions begin back in chapter 11 where in verse 17 and 18 he says;

(1Co 11:17-18 NIV) In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.​

In 11:20 he begins to address the problem of the abuse of the Lord’s Supper, where Paul makes reference to “when you come together”. Now you are more than free to broaden Paul’s use of ekklesia to more than just the corporate (weekly?) collection of the Saints to say a home group or to a prayer meeting, but to try and say that he is speaking about the worldwide Body of Christ (or similar) makes absolutely no sense, nor should it even make any sense for the cessationist.

When it comes to his correctives regarding the Lord’s Supper, he finishes off in verses 33 & 34 by saying that “when you gather to eat, you should all eat together”, where he ends by instructing us that if “Anyone who is hungry should eat at home”; so we have a reference to the corporate meeting and to our domestic households.

With chapter 12:1 Paul is still speaking of the corporate assembly of the Saints where he moves away from the abuse of the Lords Supper with a new subject which he begins with Περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν ἀδελφοι or “Now about spiritual matters brothers . . .”

As I've said before, the best approach for defending the cessationist worldview is to remain quiet, where the cessationist can maybe hope that if they do not speak about spiritual matters that they might be able to maintain the status-quo that has been built around their particular tradition; but of course this does go against Paul's declaration in 1Cor 12:1 "Now brothers I do not want you to be ignorant".

Of course, if you still want to believe that Paul is not speaking to the assemblies of the Saints, then you may be able to promote the view that when Paul says in 14:27-29 that there are to be only three prophecies and three tongues where each tongue is to be subsequently interpreted, then you might be able to say that Paul only ever expected to see tongues spoken on three occassions before they were stopped; maybe you should give Johnny Mac a call to see what he could do with this (or maybe not do with it).

 

[Righttruth]

God cannot give some inferior gifts and some superior gifts. When that is the case, where is the question of preferring some better gifts Paul listed? Paul also says the best is not the gift but the fruit of the Spirit, love. So adding spice to personal emotional outbursts and claiming that to be of the Holy Spirit holds no water! Even Paul claims that his spirit prays. And he never spoke in unknown tongue in a congregation.

The awesomeness of the Holy Spirit is to prompt a person to directly speak an existing foreign language unknown to the speaker but understood by some present. That is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost. There was no question of interpretation in the entire book of Acts. Problem arose in notorious Corinth (after about one and a half years stay of Paul there) when people started mocking at what happened on Pentecost to claim spirituality. So Paul craftily suggested a formula to silence that over a period of time as the believers grew in spiritual maturity. It worked and it stopped after a while. Unfortunately, it has relapsed into a bad Corinthian condition after nearly 2000 years!

 

[swordsman1]

How interesting indeed!

As much as I fully understand that the hard core cessationist worldview compels its adherents to regularly deny what should be obvious to everyone, I am still a bit surprised that you have failed to recognise that the context of what Paul is saying is set within the assembly of the Saints, or as we would say, the local Church meeting.

Even though Paul is establishing some correctives for the Church when it comes to the ministry of the Holy Spirit within chapters 12, 13 & 14, his admonitions begin back in chapter 11 where in verse 17 and 18 he says;

(1Co 11:17-18 NIV) In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.​

In 11:20 he begins to address the problem of the abuse of the Lord’s Supper, where Paul makes reference to “when you come together”. Now you are more than free to broaden Paul’s use of ekklesia to more than just the corporate (weekly?) collection of the Saints to say a home group or to a prayer meeting, but to try and say that he is speaking about the worldwide Body of Christ (or similar) makes absolutely no sense, nor should it even make any sense for the cessationist.

When it comes to his correctives regarding the Lord’s Supper, he finishes off in verses 33 & 34 by saying that “when you gather to eat, you should all eat together”, where he ends by instructing us that if “Anyone who is hungry should eat at home”; so we have a reference to the corporate meeting and to our domestic households.

With chapter 12:1 Paul is still speaking of the corporate assembly of the Saints where he moves away from the abuse of the Lords Supper with a new subject which he begins with Περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν ἀδελφοι or “Now about spiritual matters brothers . . .”

As I've said before, the best approach for defending the cessationist worldview is to remain quiet, where the cessationist can maybe hope that if they do not speak about spiritual matters that they might be able to maintain the status-quo that has been built around their particular tradition; but of course this does go against Paul's declaration in 1Cor 12:1 "Now brothers I do not want you to be ignorant".

Of course, if you still want to believe that Paul is not speaking to the assemblies of the Saints, then you may be able to promote the view that when Paul says in 14:27-29 that there are to be only three prophecies and three tongues where each tongue is to be subsequently interpreted, then you might be able to say that Paul only ever expected to see tongues spoken on three occassions before they were stopped; maybe you should give Johnny Mac a call to see what he could do with this (or maybe not do with it).

It it a basic hermeneutic principle, that when determining the context of a particular passage you look at the immediate context. Not apply the context from over a chapter and a half earlier when Paul was dealing with something completely different.

The immediate context of v29-30 passage is v27 "you are body of Christ". It is the same body of Christ mentioned earlier in v13 "For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body". We were not baptized in the Spirit to form a local company of believers, but rather to form the one universal church.

It is the same body of Christ that Paul illustrates with his analogy of a human body in v14-26 where each member has it's own differing role whether an eye, an ear, or a nose etc; an analogy he repeats elsewhere in his epistles. Throughout his epistles Paul uses the term 'body of Christ' as a metaphor for the universal church. In none of these verses is the context local church meetings:

Rom 12:5 "so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others."

Ephesians 3:6 "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus."

Eph 4:4 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;"

Eph 4:12 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up".

Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."

Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church;"

Colossians 1:24 "I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."​

If the gifts listed in Chapter 12 only apply to local church meetings and not the wider universal church then you end up with all sorts of rather ridiculous notions such as:

• Paul was only an Apostle when he attended a local church meeting and was apparently not an Apostle to the wider church. According to your theory his instructions were not worth a jot to the wider church.
• All the prophecies given in the New Testament by the apostles and others were not for the benefit of the wider church, but only the local congregations they were addressing.
• By your theory, gifted teachers should only teach at church meetings. They should not, for instance, write a helpful book for the benefit of people in the wider church outside their own congregation.
• Those with the gift of miracles and healing must apparently only practice their gift inside a church meeting. All those examples of healings in Acts performed in the streets were apparently aberrant practices of that gift.

So to get back to the point, in 1 Cor 12 Paul never says or even hints that all believers have the gift of tongues but some 'choose' not to practice it as you suggest. That is a preconceived idea of yours that is completely absent from the text. Paul is very clearly teaching in v29-30 that not everyone has the gift of tongues, in the same way not everyone was an Apostle, or was a prophet, or a teacher, or a worker of miracles, etc. The same way that not every member of a human body is an eye, or an ear, or a nose. But 'to one' is given the gift of wisdom, 'to another' miraculous powers, 'to another' the gift of tongues, etc, etc. Because as Paul plainly states, "we have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us".

 

[Monk Brendan]

That's right, because being baptized in the Holy Spirit always accompanied by speaking in tongues. You should really try to pay attention.

No, it is not! When I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the first gift that showed through me was prophecy, and I was able to give Words of wisdom BEFORE I started speaking in tongues.

 

[Biblicist]

It it a basic hermeneutic principle, that when determining the context of a particular passage you look at the immediate context. Not apply the context from over a chapter and a half earlier when Paul was dealing with something completely different.

As I have around 20 books on Hermeneutics, this means that I would love to see you providing a reputable source that would come even close to supporting the very strange "principle" that you have presented. I could not imagine any serious commentator moving anywhere along the lines that you have suggested. It seems that in your desperation to find an escape clause that you have maybe delved too far down into the basket of strange ideas.

So to get back to the point, in 1 Cor 12 Paul never says or even hints that all believers have the gift of tongues but some 'choose' not to practice it as you suggest. That is a preconceived idea of yours that is completely absent from the text. Paul is very clearly teaching in v29-30 that not everyone has the gift of tongues, in the same way not everyone was an Apostle, or was a prophet, or a teacher, or a worker of miracles, etc. The same way that not every member of a human body is an eye, or an ear, or a nose. But 'to one' is given the gift of wisdom, 'to another' miraculous powers, 'to another' the gift of tongues, etc, etc. Because as Paul plainly states, "we have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us".

I should maybe point to my Avatar which is a photo that I took last year of the hardcopy books that I own on First Corinthians. As they all point to how Paul is addressing questions that the Corinthians had presented to him, then his instructions to them first have an application with them and then to the rest of the Church. I can understand that the cessationist mindset tends to make its adherents fearful of the Pneumatic texts but you obviously need to sit back and take a fresh look into the Scriptures without filtering everything through your cessationist worldview.

Leaving aside the plain meaning of the passages within First Corinthians, as I also own 14 commentaries on this particular book and that they also agree (as would all commentaries) that Paul is first speaking to the Corinthians about their own situation and that chapter 14 in particular is speaking about the congregational setting, then my position that Paul is saying that "not all will speak in tongues" during the congregational meeting makes complete sense; in fact there is no other way in which it can be taken.

 

[Biblicist]

No, it is not! When I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the first gift that showed through me was prophecy, and I was able to give Words of wisdom BEFORE I started speaking in tongues.

Up until only a few years back I used to hold to the position of subsequence as well, where I adhered to the AoG understanding that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was subsequent to our intially being saved. When I took a fresh look into this position I realised that the classic-Pentecostal understanding had no support from within the Scriptures and where I had simply allowed my own experience to color my understanding of the BHS. It can be very easy for those of us who were empowered to pray in the Spirit (tongues) sometime after our initial salvation to view our experience as being a second blessing, where this new experience can easily be seen as more impactful than our initial salvific experience.

Once I understood that Paul never spoke of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as being seperate to our Salvation, I then began to realise that I had based my understanding on what was essentially an accident of history. Instead of being taught that I should be expecting to receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues the moment I was saved, due to improper teaching it took me about two years to fully recieve of the Spirit.

This means that I now acknowledge that all Christians are Baptised in the Holy Spirit irrespective if they speak in tongues or not; but I am thoroughly convinced that the Biblical record tells us that all can (and should) immediately begin to pray in the Spirit (tongues) the moment that they confess the Lord Jesus as their Saviour.