Tongues as Initial Evidence

Mathetes the kerux · Aug 2, 2010

Oscarr said:
I had an interesting thought while I was thinking about the issues around the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I was tempted to put it on the AOG forum, but once bitten - twice shy!

However, the thought I had was that the initial evidence of people receiving the baptism in the Spirit was the gift of tongues as shown in the book of Acts. It was quite obvious that this was the case. This is the basis of AOG doctrine.

My conflict about that is that the first evidence of a person receiving the baptism is faith - because it is received by faith, and according to Hebrews, faith is the evidence of things not seen. But when I expressed this on the AOG forum, I came under some intense flak because some thought that I was attacking AOG doctrine.

But it is a matter of perspective. I believe that for the person receiving the baptism in the Spirit, the initial evidence is faith. he believes in faith that he is filled with the Spirit and therefore he launches out and speaks in tongues.

But, and here's the point, the observers who see the person being baptised in the Spirit, the initial evidence for them is the gift of tongues. How else are they going to know that the particular person they prayed for has actually received the baptism in the Spirit?

When we analyse it that way, then there is no conflict with AOG doctrine, because it is a matter of what is manifested by the person receiving the baptism and this manifestation is seen by the observers and for them the initial evidence is the gift of tongues!

But for the person receiving the baptism, he cannot speak in tongues into he first believes he is baptised in the Spirit, therefore faith comes first, then the gift of tongues. This is why I contend that for the person receiving the baptism in the Spirit, the initial evidence for him is faith. Then the next evidence which should flow naturally is the gift of tongues.

This is why the articulation of the Doctrine is Initial PHYSICAL Evidence. That is the exact wording.

Trish1947 · Aug 2, 2010

I had a friend that did nothing but shake all over but she never opened her mouth. So nothing came out. Later on that night she woke up speaking in tongues. She said she felt that she had received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that day, and she was convienced that if she would have opened her mouth she would have spoke in tongues then. So if you don't open your mouth, can anything come out as evidence?

JEBrady · Aug 2, 2010

Trish1947 said:
I had a friend that did nothing but shake all over but she never opened her mouth. So nothing came out. Later on that night she woke up speaking in tongues. She said she felt that she had received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that day, and she was convienced that if she would have opened her mouth she would have spoke in tongues then. So if you don't open your mouth, can anything come out as evidence?

When I got it, it was the umpteenth time I had gone to the altar. Once I received, I realized I could have got it the first time if I had only opened my mouth.

bloodbought09 · Aug 2, 2010

When I first got it I was afraid because I had the revelation that the power that brought everything into existence was working in me. It is a scary thing to be working at a job and having the unction of the Holy Spirit welling up inside. Every time I went to the walk in to get something, I had to let some out. The Holy Spirit causes us to be witnesses to Christ. He is Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Bless.

hislegacy · Aug 3, 2010

1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.

bloodbought09 · Aug 3, 2010

Balance said:
1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.

What does this have to do with tongues as initial evidence? Being filled with the Holy Spirit and praying in the Spirit is a good way to go on to perfection, building up the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.

If God permits, we should follow Jesus Christ in water baptism. This is a decision to follow Christ and a way to pick up our cross. There still is the baptism of Holy Spirit and fire. When the newness of life comes in this is the resurrection of the dead, because sin leads to death but the Spirit gives life. When we put our trust in Christ, Jesus takes and has taken the punishment upon Himself, so that we are not condemned. Moving away from dead works is doing to the least of these as if they are Christ. If we want to see His face, look at the homeless.

Bless.

Mathetes the kerux · Aug 3, 2010

bloodbought09 said:
What does this have to do with tongues as initial evidence? Being filled with the Holy Spirit and praying in the Spirit is a good way to go on to perfection, building up the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.

If God permits, we should follow Jesus Christ in water baptism. This is a decision to follow Christ and a way to pick up our cross. There still is the baptism of Holy Spirit and fire. When the newness of life comes in this is the resurrection of the dead, because sin leads to death but the Spirit gives life. When we put our trust in Christ, Jesus takes and has taken the punishment upon Himself, so that we are not condemned. Moving away from dead works is doing to the least of these as if they are Christ. If we want to see His face, look at the homeless.

Bless.

I think that he is referring to the fact that he feels this discussion, per his scripture citation, is an elementary matter and should wane in importance to more important matters . . .

which is what the text refers to

BUT I think that he is missing the these "elementary" issues, are not elementary anymore, as the church at large doesnt have the same unity over them that they did when Hebrews was penned. It is only when unity is reached on these that one can move forward into the more important matters.

Rose_bud · Aug 24, 2010

Oscarr said:
I had an interesting thought while I was thinking about the issues around the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I was tempted to put it on the AOG forum, but once bitten - twice shy!

However, the thought I had was that the initial evidence of people receiving the baptism in the Spirit was the gift of tongues as shown in the book of Acts. It was quite obvious that this was the case. This is the basis of AOG doctrine.

My conflict about that is that the first evidence of a person receiving the baptism is faith - because it is received by faith, and according to Hebrews, faith is the evidence of things not seen. But when I expressed this on the AOG forum, I came under some intense flak because some thought that I was attacking AOG doctrine.

But it is a matter of perspective. I believe that for the person receiving the baptism in the Spirit, the initial evidence is faith. he believes in faith that he is filled with the Spirit and therefore he launches out and speaks in tongues.

But, and here's the point, the observers who see the person being baptised in the Spirit, the initial evidence for them is the gift of tongues. How else are they going to know that the particular person they prayed for has actually received the baptism in the Spirit?

When we analyse it that way, then there is no conflict with AOG doctrine, because it is a matter of what is manifested by the person receiving the baptism and this manifestation is seen by the observers and for them the initial evidence is the gift of tongues!

But for the person receiving the baptism, he cannot speak in tongues into he first believes he is baptised in the Spirit, therefore faith comes first, then the gift of tongues. This is why I contend that for the person receiving the baptism in the Spirit, the initial evidence for him is faith. Then the next evidence which should flow naturally is the gift of tongues.

For we walk by faith and not by sight...

He put me back together · Aug 29, 2010

Faulty said:
When you read each instance of this filling in Acts, you see that indeed some are documented with the recipients speaking in tongues, but not all, including Paul's account.

Personally, I think its reckless to make such an absolute doctrine concerning tongues when it does not hold up in every case demonstrated in the scripture.

I agree with you on this. While it is evident that in every case of the book of Acts there was initial evidence of some kind, it is not remotely implied by Scripture that this evidence was always speaking in tongues for every single individual, nor is there a doctrine for such therein.

Should we discount speaking in tongues as an initial evidence? Not at all--it was an initial evidence in Scripture. But it wasn't the only one.

Furthermore, initial evidence is not proof, and too much weight is placed on hat tricks, IMO. Too often I have seen devoted, hard-working, virtuous believers trashed and demeaned because they didn't perform the right hat tricks in the altar, while back-biting betrayers were said to have the Holy Ghost because they babbled and put on a show.

Something that is stated as such a fundamental truth should have a sturdier foundation in Scripture.

Tenacity · Aug 31, 2010

He put me back together said:
I agree with you on this. While it is evident that in every case of the book of Acts there was initial evidence of some kind, it is not remotely implied by Scripture that this evidence was always speaking in tongues for every single individual, nor is there a doctrine for such therein.

Should we discount speaking in tongues as an initial evidence? Not at all--it was an initial evidence in Scripture. But it wasn't the only one.

Furthermore, initial evidence is not proof, and too much weight is placed on hat tricks, IMO. Too often I have seen devoted, hard-working, virtuous believers trashed and demeaned because they didn't perform the right hat tricks in the altar, while back-biting betrayers were said to have the Holy Ghost because they babbled and put on a show.

Something that is stated as such a fundamental truth should have a sturdier foundation in Scripture.

I would like to add that the fruit of the Spirit is evidence of a life submitted to the Father. We have many examples in scripture (as well as in everyday life) of men who had a 'gift' or 'special anointing' to perform specific tasks, and yet these very same men were not right with God.

I can really appreciate the 'hat trick' analogy. I wore myself out at one point trying to keep up with the latest greatest 'experience'.

I always thought that if I could have the latest greatest experience that I would find freedom from sin and have peace and joy. It never worked.

Jesus is the way. If you follow Jesus then the signs will follow you.

JEBrady · Aug 31, 2010

The manifestations of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc. have nothing to do with building character in our lives. A baby Christian can do that on day one. That is the power of God to witness His word. Someone who knows how to respond to the Holy Spirit can do so even while living a life of disobedience. But the fruit of the spirit in a person's life comes from diligence in obeying God's word where it requires something from us- yielding our bodies in a life of living sacrifice, not being conformed to this world, keeping ourselves from being spotted by sin.

That's one of the reasons there's so much spiritual immaturity in charismatic churches, IMO. Talking in tongues is easier than living like Jesus.

Tenacity · Sep 2, 2010

JEBrady said:
The manifestations of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc. have nothing to do with building character in our lives. A baby Christian can do that on day one. That is the power of God to witness His word. Someone who knows how to respond to the Holy Spirit can do so even while living a life of disobedience. But the fruit of the spirit in a person's life comes from diligence in obeying God's word where it requires something from us- yielding our bodies in a life of living sacrifice, not being conformed to this world, keeping ourselves from being spotted by sin.

That's one of the reasons there's so much spiritual immaturity in charismatic churches, IMO. Talking in tongues is easier than living like Jesus.

Absolutely. Totally agree, and I pray in the Spirit often. But most of us aren't even surrendered enough to even be able to hear God's word... much less obey him.

JimB · Sep 2, 2010

If speaking in tongues is “evidence” of anything, I would ask, Evidence for whom? Tongues can be faked? Didn’t Robert Duvall fake tongues in the movie “The Apostle”? Sounded real enough to me. Besides, only the person speaking and God need evidence? The rest of us can be duped.

Here’s a true story. In the Pentecostal AOG church I was a member of 15 years ago, the cornerstone of the their building has the names of two deacons who later committed suicide. Both were friends of mine and both spoke in tongues (it was a requirement for being deacon in that church). Soon after the building was built and the cornerstone engraved, one of the men fell away from church, began using (or re-using) drugs, lost his family, went into a depression, and shot himself. His brother, a fine godly man who was in management in a company in our city, was honest, smart, stable, and naturally talented in many ways, could not be a deacon. Why? Because he had never spoken in tongues. A retiring, timid, and humble man, he avoided any kind of attention to himself, and had, over the years, developed a mental block about speaking in tongues. On the other hand, his brother, who drove a truck and could not hold a job, had spoken in tongues once and so the “evidence” was there that he was deacon material. Only, IMO, the faithful but disqualified brother, who still serves the Lord faithfully to this day, still sits a pew unable to serve his church because he has not spoken in tongues. Incidentally, he also has not committed suicide.

IMO, this is just one case in point of how ridiculous our application of the “tongues as evidence” doctrine can be in real life. It makes a good doctrine (on paper) but it works a lot better on paper than it does in real life.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I don’t depend on them.

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 2, 2010

JimB said:
If speaking in tongues is evidence of anything, I would ask, Evidence for whom? Tongues can be faked? Didnt Robert Duvall fake tongues in the movie The Apostle? Sounded real enough to me. Besides, only the person speaking and God need evidence? The rest of us can be duped.

Heres a true story. In the Pentecostal AOG church I was a member of 15 years ago, the cornerstone of the their building has the names of two deacons who later committed suicide. Both were friends of mine and both spoke in tongues (it was a requirement for being deacon in that church). Soon after the building was built and the cornerstone engraved, one of the men fell away from church, began using (or re-using) drugs, lost his family, went into a depression, and shot himself. His brother, a fine godly man who was in management in a company in our city, was honest, smart, stable, and naturally talented in many ways, could not be a deacon. Why? Because he had never spoken in tongues. A retiring, timid, and humble man, he avoided any kind of attention to himself, and had, over the years, developed a mental block about speaking in tongues. On the other hand, his brother, who drove a truck and could not hold a job, had spoken in tongues once and so the evidence was there that he was deacon material. Only, IMO, the faithful but disqualified brother, who still serves the Lord faithfully to this day, still sits a pew unable to serve his church because he has not spoken in tongues. Incidentally, he also has not committed suicide.

IMO, this is just one case in point of how ridiculous our application of the tongues as evidence doctrine can be in real life. It makes a good doctrine (on paper) but it works a lot better on paper than it does in real life.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I dont depend on them.

well said Jim . . . so sad.

BUT the application of a Denom on the doctrine in its use in the local church has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the doctrine (orthodoxy) but with the legitemacy of the practice (orthopraxy) OF said doctrine.

IOW, the doctrine can be right as rain and the application in the case wrong as wrong can be.

Ya kno?

JEBrady · Sep 3, 2010

Not only that, but there are requirements for serving as a deacon that are very plainly written in the scriptures that this man, the way he is described, did not meet. The biblical requirements don't happen to include speaking in tongues. Doesn't it seem off a bit that an unwritten requirement would be given more weight than the ones that are written?

JimB · Sep 3, 2010

But the problem I see with imposing rules, even biblical rules and requirements, is that we have to accept the person that they are showing us they are, not always who they truly are. We cannot always see behind their masks and that’s why we are cautioned not to lay hands suddenly, i.e., ordain people too quickly, without the time it requires to really know them. And then, even with time, it’s a risk.

My point was, that it takes more than just speaking in tongues to give evidence of a Spirit-filled life. In fact, IMO, speaking in tongues means little.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I don’t depend on them.

lismore · Sep 3, 2010

JimB said:
Sounded real enough to me. Besides, only the person speaking and God need evidence? The rest of us can be duped.

AT the day of pentecost visitors from all different languages heard the gospel in their own tongue. It's got to be a verifiable language.

IMO a lot of this modern stuff, people talking jibberish {in corporate settings} then saying it's the tongues of angels.........no no. Do angels need to hear the gospel?

Tongues are a sign to the unbeliever.

It cannot be faked. If there is a Romanian gypsy sitting in the meeting and someone gets up and speaks in tongues and it's not Romanian gypsy language........no good.

It's the msot awesome experience when there are real tongues in the meeting.........people hear the gospel in their own language, such pure language that not even a native speaker could replicate it. Awesome and unambiguous

JimB · Sep 3, 2010

lismore said:
AT the day of pentecost visitors from all different languages heard the gospel in their own tongue. It's got to be a verifiable language.

IMO a lot of this modern stuff, people talking jibberish {in corporate settings} then saying it's the tongues of angels.........no no. Do angels need to hear the gospel?

Tongues are a sign to the unbeliever.

It cannot be faked. If there is a Romanian gypsy sitting in the meeting and someone gets up and speaks in tongues and it's not Romanian gypsy language........no good.

It's the msot awesome experience when there are real tongues in the meeting.........people hear the gospel in their own language, such pure language that not even a native speaker could replicate it. Awesome and unambiguous

Yes!! I am beginning to think along these same lines, Lis. IMO, we need a better understanding of all of Gods enablements/gifts before we start (continue) to run amok with them.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I dont depend on them.

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 3, 2010

lismore said:
AT the day of pentecost visitors from all different languages heard the gospel in their own tongue. It's got to be a verifiable language.

IMO a lot of this modern stuff, people talking jibberish {in corporate settings} then saying it's the tongues of angels.........no no. Do angels need to hear the gospel?

Tongues are a sign to the unbeliever.

It cannot be faked. If there is a Romanian gypsy sitting in the meeting and someone gets up and speaks in tongues and it's not Romanian gypsy language........no good.

It's the msot awesome experience when there are real tongues in the meeting.........people hear the gospel in their own language, such pure language that not even a native speaker could replicate it. Awesome and unambiguous

Hey Lis . . .

sorry man, couldnt be farther from the truth.

If tongues were to spread the Gospel then why:

1. Is it mostly TO GOD (the whole context of 1 Cor 14)

2. In each instance in Acts aside from Chapter 2, those hearing the tongues WERE ALREADY BELIEVERS

3. The Greek of Acts 2 makes human languages (what was spoken) impossible . . . tho what was heard was human languages

4. The testament of Job speaks of an ecstatic language (called heavenly speech) that is the dialects of ANGELS (so that Pauls statement is NOT hyperbole)

cheers

MTK

Faulty · Sep 3, 2010

Mathetes the kerux said:
2. In each instance in Acts aside from Chapter 2, those hearing the tongues WERE ALREADY BELIEVERS

3. The Greek of Acts 2 makes human languages (what was spoken) impossible . . . tho what was heard was human languages

Would you mind backing that up with anything?

Tongues as Initial Evidence

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Free to Believe

Senior Member

Veteran

Memories pre 2021

Veteran

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Official Hog washer

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Legend

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Senior Member

Legend

Maranatha

Legend

Tales of a Twice Born Man

bind on pick up

Similar threads