Being filled with the Holy Spirit vs tongues

[ViaCrucis]

I believe God already has chosen to save infants, so those who are saved as adults must trust in Jesus to save them, and even that Gift of faith comes from God Himself!

While I am confident in God's mercy for all, including unbaptized infants; such a hope exists on account of the implicit revelation of God's grace and kindness through Christ, not because I believe infants are somehow immune from the need of the saving grace of God that is found in Christ. And that is why we baptize our children, not because we think that if we don't then they are damned to eternal hellfire, but because we trust in God's kindness and promises through the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Saint Steven]

That the Apostle spoke in tongues isn't in question; but there's no evidence that glossolalia was part of his conversion. To assert that it was requires first demonstrating that glossolalia always accompanies conversion; and neither Scripture, historic Christian teaching, or the consensus witness of the Church throughout the ages suggests this to be the case.

Let's look at the facts.
Granted the passage does not say that he spoke in tongues. Agreed.
But nothing else about this diminishes the likelihood that he did.

For one thing, this was not his conversion experience. He had an encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. That was his conversion experience. He spent the next several days in fasting and prayer awaiting the arrival of Ananias.

Secondly, Ananias was sent to minister healing and his filling with the Holy Spirit.
Ananias laid hands on Saul. This was the common method used to deliver the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues (primarily). Other manifestations were possible. IMHO

Thirdly, the healing of Saul was the extraordinary event here, reporting whether he spoke in tongues, or not (as was common at his point) was of lesser importance. Where's the news? No reason to report what is common when more extraordinary things are going on.

All this evidence leads me to conclude that he did in fact speak in tongues when Ananias laid hands on him to receive the Holy Spirit. Every other instance of the laying on of hands to minister the filling of the Holy Spirit came with tongues. Why would this be different?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's look at the facts.
Granted the passage does not say that he spoke in tongues. Agreed.
But nothing else about this diminishes the likelihood that he did.

For one thing, this was not his conversion experience. He had an encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. That was his conversion experience. He spent the next several days in fasting and prayer awaiting the arrival of Ananias.

Secondly, Ananias was sent to minister healing and his filling with the Holy Spirit.
Ananias laid hands on Saul. This was the common method used to deliver the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues (primarily). Other manifestations were possible. IMHO

Thirdly, the healing of Saul was the extraordinary event here, reporting whether he spoke in tongues, or not (as was common at his point) was of lesser importance. Where's the news? No reason to report what is common when more extraordinary things are going on.

All this evidence leads me to conclude that he did in fact speak in tongues when Ananias laid hands on him to receive the Holy Spirit. Every other instance of the laying on of hands to minister the filling of the Holy Spirit came with tongues. Why would this be different?

The assumption here is that the laying on of hands was to administer "the baptism with the Holy Spirit" an assumption I do not agree with. Further, not every instance of hands being laid upon came with speaking in tongues, no mention of tongues is mentioned of the Samaritans:

"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." - Acts 8:14-17

The Acts record an incident where tongues came with laying on hands, and other times where no mention is made. Of the accounts I can find mentioned in the Acts, there are three:

1. The Samaritans
2. St. Paul
3. The disciples of St. John the Baptist.

In only the third instance are tongues mentioned.

Other instances of laying on of hands include the consecration of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:3), the ordaining and consecration of the original seven deacons (Acts 6:6), and the healing of Publius' father (Acts 28:8).

But of the three instances where laying on of hands for the receiving of the Spirit are mentioned, only one includes speaking in tongues.

So the claim that "in every other instance" isn't actually true. In fact it only one instance, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is this the case. Unless I have missed some, if I have I welcome correction on the matter.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Saint Steven]

The assumption here is that the laying on of hands was to administer "the baptism with the Holy Spirit" an assumption I do not agree with.

Ananias went there to deliver healing and the filling with the Holy Spirit. He laid hands to do this. Why is that not clear? (rhetorical question)

 

[Saint Steven]

The assumption here is that the laying on of hands was to administer "the baptism with the Holy Spirit" an assumption I do not agree with. Further, not every instance of hands being laid upon came with speaking in tongues, no mention of tongues is mentioned of the Samaritans:

"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." - Acts 8:14-17

Wow. Let's look at the evidence again.

How did they know that the Holy Spirit had not "fallen upon none of them."?
No evidence of speaking in tongues.

How did they know that "they received the Holy Spirit"?
The evidence of speaking in tongues.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ananias went there to deliver healing and the filling with the Holy Spirit. He laid hands to do this. Why is that not clear? (rhetorical question)

That much is clear. My contention is with the idea that this is "baptism with the Holy Spirit". I am challenging that assumption. My argument is that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" has a very specific, narrow definition. Baptism with the Holy Spirit =/= receiving the Holy Spirit, being filled with the Holy Spirit, or being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. These concepts are asymmetrical. Yes, when the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost those gathered in the upper room were filled with the Holy Spirit; that does not--by necessity--mean that being filled with the Holy Spirit is the same thing as being baptized with the Holy Spirit. To use an analogy, I can travel Highway X to get to Destination Y, but that does not necessarily mean that, if one has arrived to Destination Y did so by traveling Highway X.

My argument: As per the usage of Scripture itself, I maintain that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" refers, chiefly, to a very specific historical event in the early life of the Church, namely what happened on Pentecost. There is only one other event that is even remotely like it, and it is what happened when Peter came to Cornelius' house. These two events uniquely share similar qualities and, most importantly, are the only two events recorded in the Acts where the phrase "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is used. It is used no where else.

Laying on of hands is not baptism with the Holy Spirit, it is laying on of hands, i.e. Chrismation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wow. Let's look at the evidence again.

How did they know that the Holy Spirit had not "fallen upon none of them."?
No evidence of speaking in tongues.

How did they know that "they received the Holy Spirit"?
The evidence of speaking in tongues.

Neither assertion is evidenced in the text. As such you are simply speculating, and additionally imposing something that simply isn't in the text.

For all I know the Samaritans did speak in tongues, just as for all I know Paul did as well when he went to Ananias' house. But, given the evidence available, no such claim can be made one way or the other. As such the claim that it did happen is a claim made purely by speculation, not by a critical analysis of the biblical texts themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Saint Steven]

That much is clear. My contention is with the idea that this is "baptism with the Holy Spirit". I am challenging that assumption. My argument is that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" has a very specific, narrow definition. Baptism with the Holy Spirit =/= receiving the Holy Spirit, being filled with the Holy Spirit, or being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. These concepts are asymmetrical. Yes, when the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost those gathered in the upper room were filled with the Holy Spirit; that does not--by necessity--mean that being filled with the Holy Spirit is the same thing as being baptized with the Holy Spirit. To use an analogy, I can travel Highway X to get to Destination Y, but that does not necessarily mean that, if one has arrived to Destination Y did so by traveling Highway X.

My argument: As per the usage of Scripture itself, I maintain that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" refers, chiefly, to a very specific historical event in the early life of the Church, namely what happened on Pentecost. There is only one other event that is even remotely like it, and it is what happened when Peter came to Cornelius' house. These two events uniquely share similar qualities and, most importantly, are the only two events recorded in the Acts where the phrase "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is used. It is used no where else.

Laying on of hands is not baptism with the Holy Spirit, it is laying on of hands, i.e. Chrismation.

-CryptoLutheran

The intended scope of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is defined in two places. The words of John the Baptist and the words of Peter at the outpouring at Pentecost. John the Baptist addressed the Israelites that were present when he said Jesus was the baptizer with the Holy Spirit. Was there any limitation to this declaration? No. At Pentecost Peter said the promise was "... for you and your children and for all who are far off..." - Acts 2:39 --- Any limitation? No.

Luke 3:16
John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Saint Steven]

Neither assertion is evidenced in the text. As such you are simply speculating, and additionally imposing something that simply isn't in the text.

For all I know the Samaritans did speak in tongues, just as for all I know Paul did as well when he went to Ananias' house. But, given the evidence available, no such claim can be made one way or the other. As such the claim that it did happen is a claim made purely by speculation, not by a critical analysis of the biblical texts themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

Who needs "critical analysis of the biblical text" when simple logic answers the question?

Two questions:
1) How did they know that the Holy Spirit had "fallen upon none of them."?
Before they laid hands on them. (no tongues)
2) How did they know that "they received the Holy Spirit"?
After they laid hands on them. (tongues)

 

[New Birth]

By the gifts of tongues, as that was JUST for that special event, of God showing to them Gentiles were now to get saved by same Jesus!

When you get saved by Jesus you will have the same experience.

 

[New Birth]

Not just tongues. Tongues and what else?

Acts 10:44-46
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. ...

The thread is about tongues. But of course there are other evidences of the Holy Ghost. Just the first thing that happens is someone will speak in tongues. Too many denominations and doctrine have come over the course of two thousand years. If we were to go back to first century church even into the fourth century before Constantine the baptism with the spirit accompanied by tongues was the norm. I'm saying lets go back to the time of the Apostles and get what they and their converts had.

 

[ViaCrucis]

even into the fourth century before Constantine the baptism with the spirit accompanied by tongues was the norm.

I'm sure you will humor us by providing evidence for this claim.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm saying lets go back to the time of the Apostles and get what they and their converts had.

Then you do understand that this is not present today. No reason to go back if this was the case now.

We are actually somewhat in agreement on this point.
I too am part of the segment of Christianity that wants to bring back what we have lost through unbelief. The prevalence of Cessationism has robbed the church of Holy Spirit power. I believe there has always been a remnant to fan the flame of manifestations of the Spirit. But we are struggling to move forward. It's been tough going. However, I am very encouraged by this current generation. We have young children in our church praying for the sick who are then healed. As mentioned earlier, they are speaking in tongues before they are water baptized. These kids are full of faith and promise.

 

[Saint Steven]

I was thinking about how difficult it is to discuss this topic of: Being filled with the Holy Spirit vs tongues; because even the Bible we have doesn't seem to address it consistently. (heresy?) Let me explain.

In Acts chapter two at the outpouring we are told that those in the upper room were "filled" with the Holy Spirit. But in the case of the Samaritans, the concern was that the Holy Spirit had not yet "fallen upon" any of them. The standard understanding of Pentecost is that the Spirit fell on the group. But the text doesn't state it that way.

So in the case of the Samaritans, the Apostles laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. But there is no mention of a manifestation giving evidence. You have to read between the lines to understand what most likely happened.

They knew the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on the Samaritans (it would seem) due to a lack of manifestations. Remember, these Samaritans were baptized believers. The remedy was to lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (presumably to fall on them).

The report was that "they received the Holy Spirit". But the previous statement indicates that this was indeed the baptism with the Holy Spirit. "For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 8:16 --- the phrase "only been baptized" was in reference to water baptism. The Samaritans were in the need of another kind of baptism. What would this be? (Luke 3:16)

Admittedly, we ALL approach this subject with personal bias. And I don't claim to have all of this figured out. And as I stated earlier, I don't know that anyone can claim that. Because God requires faith on our part.

Faith is moving forward in God when you still don't have all your questions answered. IMHO

 

[New Birth]

I was thinking about how difficult it is to discuss this topic of: Being filled with the Holy Spirit vs tongues; because even the Bible we have doesn't seem to address it consistently. (heresy?) Let me explain.

In Acts chapter two at the outpouring we are told that those in the upper room were "filled" with the Holy Spirit. But in the case of the Samaritans, the concern was that the Holy Spirit had not yet "fallen upon" any of them. The standard understanding of Pentecost is that the Spirit fell on the group. But the text doesn't state it that way.

So in the case of the Samaritans, the Apostles laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. But there is no mention of a manifestation giving evidence. You have to read between the lines to understand what most likely happened.

They knew the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on the Samaritans (it would seem) due to a lack of manifestations. Remember, these Samaritans were baptized believers. The remedy was to lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (presumably to fall on them).

The report was that "they received the Holy Spirit". But the previous statement indicates that this was indeed the baptism with the Holy Spirit. "For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 8:16 --- the phrase "only been baptized" was in reference to water baptism. The Samaritans were in the need of another kind of baptism. What would this be? (Luke 3:16)

Admittedly, we ALL approach this subject with personal bias. And I don't claim to have all of this figured out. And as I stated earlier, I don't know that anyone can claim that. Because God requires faith on our part.

Faith is moving forward in God when you still don't have all your questions answered. IMHO

I like this post and agree with most. (Please don't take me wrong here) but what I think is missing in your understanding is the baptism of the Holy Ghost, Holy Ghost falling, instilling, etc is the same event. I know you believe the baptism of the spirit is subsequent but it isn't. The Apostles was looking for the same experience in the new converts as they themselves had received on the day of Pentecost. There are only two parts to the born again experience water and spirit, however there is more than one description of the spirit baptism.

 

[swordsman1]

Jesus said they that believe shall speak with new tongues. So do fit the description of a believer according to Jesus? I do. I take it your "group" doesn't either.

To speak with "new tongues" doesn't mean the tongues were non-human. It means to speak in languages which were new to the speaker.

Mounce Greek Lexicon
καινός
Strong's number:
2537

Gloss:
new, latest, anew; in some contexts new is superior to old (Mt 9:17; Heb 8)

Definition:
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​

Nowhere in scripture does it say tongues were a non-human language. In fact, up until the start of the twentieth century the idea of tongues being a non-human language was unheard of. The only description of tongues is in Acts 2, which clearly says it is miraculously speaking a foreign language you have never learned.

Do you speak in tongues as scripture describes it? I suspect you don't. I suspect what you have discovered is the natural phenomenon of the flesh known to linguists as 'free vocalisation' or glossolalia, where the speech organs go into 'auto-pilot' and produce strings of random syllables. Professional linguists have been studying glossolalia for years. The most respected study is by Dr. William Samarin of the University of Toronto who did a 10 year study of Pentecostal tongues. Here are some excerpts from his study:

"There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units”

"The speaker controls the rhythm, volume, speed and inflection of his speech so that the sounds emerge as pseudo- language -- in the form of words and sentences. Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language.”

"All specimens of glossolalia that have ever been studied have produced no features that would even suggest that they reflect some kind of communicative system.”

"When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade of language; although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, is a specimen of human language, because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives."

"...a meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead."

“And it has already been established that no special power needs to take over a person's vocal organs; all of us are equipped with everything we need to produce glossolalia”​

"Glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon....It is similar to many other kinds of speech humans produce in more or less normal circumstances, in more or less normal psychological states. In fact, anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers what the "trick" is"​

Millions of people have been misled by the Pentecostal/charismatic movement teaching that this practice is New Testament tongues. What people call 'tongues' today does not match the biblical description of the gift. Not even Pentecostalism's leading theologian, Gordon Fee, is prepared to say that today's so-called 'tongues' is New Testament tongues. The most he is prepared to say is that it is something 'analogous' to NT tongues.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Who needs "critical analysis of the biblical text" when simple logic answers the question?

Two questions:
1) How did they know that the Holy Spirit had "fallen upon none of them."?
Before they laid hands on them. (no tongues)
2) How did they know that "they received the Holy Spirit"?
After they laid hands on them. (tongues)

1) We don't know, the text doesn't tell us. For all we know an angel told them, or they had a vision. Without anything to actually give us an answer to such a question we are left only with our imagination and speculation.

2) They knew because they laid hands on them for that purpose. That would be all that is necessary here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The intended scope of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is defined in two places. The words of John the Baptist and the words of Peter at the outpouring at Pentecost. John the Baptist addressed the Israelites that were present when he said Jesus was the baptizer with the Holy Spirit. Was there any limitation to this declaration? No. At Pentecost Peter said the promise was "... for you and your children and for all who are far off..." - Acts 2:39 --- Any limitation? No.

Luke 3:16
John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

But Peter isn't describing the baptism with the Holy spirit in Acts 2:39, he is speaking of the promise he had just spoken, "repent and be baptized, all of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", this promise, attached to "repent and be baptized" is that their sins would be forgiven and they would receive the Holy Spirit.

John foretells that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
Jesus, in Acts 1, echoes these same words, speaking of their needing to wait in Jerualem until this happens. It happened on Pentecost.
Then Peter mentions it again in reference to the Pentecost-like pouring of the Spirit on the Gentiles when he came and preached to them, as recorded in Acts 10-11.

And so the words of St. John the Baptist were fulfilled on Pentecost. At no point is the laying on of hands associated, called, or identified with the "baptism with the Holy Spirit. Only two things are: Pentecost and Cornelius' household. Two very unique, special, and pivotal moments at the beginning of the Christian movement.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Saint Steven]

I like this post and agree with most. (Please don't take me wrong here) but what I think is missing in your understanding is the baptism of the Holy Ghost, Holy Ghost falling, instilling, etc is the same event. I know you believe the baptism of the spirit is subsequent but it isn't. The Apostles was looking for the same experience in the new converts as they themselves had received on the day of Pentecost. There are only two parts to the born again experience water and spirit, however there is more than one description of the spirit baptism.

Can you explain what went wrong in Samaria? (Acts 8)

 

[Saint Steven]

1) We don't know, the text doesn't tell us. For all we know an angel told them, or they had a vision. Without anything to actually give us an answer to such a question we are left only with our imagination and speculation.

2) They knew because they laid hands on them for that purpose. That would be all that is necessary here.

-CryptoLutheran

Answer two is in conflict with answer one.
The believers in Samaria had been water baptized. That should have been sufficient according to answer number two. But it wasn't. So, what was the problem?