Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 18, 2018

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:
I wish they would give a clear and detailed guideline when people attend these types of churches so people know what to expect. Even seasoned Christians who know a lot of scripture (like myself) don't have all the specifics when it comes to speaking in tongues.

In the AOG church where I was converted, they had a new Christians class where clear and detailed guidelines were given. Also, there are many good books that give sound teaching concerning tongues, what it is, the purpose of it, and how to use it correctly.

Sam91 · Sep 18, 2018

Oscarr said:
It was first recognised in its present form in the Pentecostal movement at the turn of the 20th Century.

When I counsel people concerning the gifts (including tongues), I establish that they believe that it is certainly God's will for them to receive that gift. If they are not sure. I don't go any further with them. There is no point pressuring a person to receive something that they don't want.

I meant the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When did pentecostals start talking about that?

Twenty years ago it was never mentioned in the pentecostal AoG church I attended for about two years. I didn't speak in tongues but to all intents and purposes was Spirit-filled in their eyes.

I first heard of it from a Christian who listened to an American televangelist preacher 2 years ago. He called it baptism of fire and I read his theories. I disagree with them.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 18, 2018

Viewing

swordsman1 said:
What people call 'praying in tongues' nowadays it is not praying in tongues as scripture describes the phenomenon. Although they genuinely believe it is the NT gift (as they are taught), I believe what they actually experience is the natural phenomenon of the flesh known to linguists as free vocalization or glossolalia. It is the technique of letting your vocal organs do it's own thing. Today's 'tongues' has been well researched and proved to be devoid of any linguistic structure - it is just strings of syllables haphazardly put together to give the appearance of language. It is not unique to Christianity. Anyone can discover the technique. It is commonly found in pagan religions and atheists. You can even find ex-Pentecostals who have abandoned the Christian faith and declared themselves to be atheist and yet they can still fluently 'speak in tongues'. This proves that it is not of the Holy Spirit.

The only description of tongues in scripture is found in Acts 2 and it is miraculously speaking a foreign human languages you have never previously learned. It is nowhere redefined as being a non-human language.

Viewing it from a natural perspective, you are quite right. It is certainly found in pagan religions, and in the Mormon church! Anyone can make up a language. They made up the Klingon language in StarTrek. No surprises there. I can also understand those who have rejected Christ and become atheists still being able to speak in "tongues". I accept that because that is the reality of it.
But...

Is there a difference between these people, and genuine believers going through the steps of faith asking for and receiving the gift (would God give anything else other than what was requested. If a child asks for fish would a father give him a snake, or if he asked for bread would he give him a stone? So how much more would God, being absolutely good and faithful, not give genuine tongues to those who asked for the gift in faith?), so that when they step out, using their faith, and start to speak a language, would they receive anything different than genuine tongues?

If a person turns away from Christ after receiving genuine tongues, would the tongues continue as before? I don't know, because the Scripture says that the gifts and calling of God, once given, are without repentance. Anyhow, what atheist would want to continue praying in tongues to a God he no longer believes exists? Wouldn't that be pointless? So if the atheist demonstrates he can speak in tongues to show that he still can, then he is not using it for the purpose it was designed, and so it would be useless noise then.

Have you heard any pagans speaking in their version of tongues? What does it sound like? It is the same or different to those you have heard praying in tongues in worship to the Living God?

Just askin'

swordsman1 · Sep 18, 2018

Oscarr said:
Is there a difference between these people, and genuine believers going through the steps of faith asking for and receiving the gift (would God give anything else other than what was requested. If a child asks for fish would a father give him a snake, or if he asked for bread would he give him a stone? So how much more would God, being absolutely good and faithful, not give genuine tongues to those who asked for the gift in faith?), so that when they step out, using their faith, and start to speak a language, would they receive anything different than genuine tongues?

Genuine believers have been mistaken over many things. Some believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Some believe that that you have to obey the 10 commandments and keep the Saturday sabbath. Some believe in apostolic succession. Some believe that bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ. Being a genuine believer doesn't make you immune to a false teaching or practice, even if it sincerely held to be true, including praying about it. (And no doubt they think the same about my heartfelt beliefs!).

Oscarr said:
If a person turns away from Christ after receiving genuine tongues, would the tongues continue as before? I don't know, because the Scripture says that the gifts and calling of God, once given, are without repentance. Anyhow, what atheist would want to continue praying in tongues to a God he no longer believes exists? Wouldn't that be pointless?

The people I am referring to have admitted they were never Christians at all. They spent many years in the Pentecostal church where they discovered how to 'speak in tongues' as fluently as anyone else in their congregation. Everyone was convinced they were genuine believers. But they had never accepted Christ as their savior, and in due course abandoned it all and declared themselves to be atheist. Yet they can still speak in fluent tongues, just as well as any other Pentecostal.

Oscarr said:
So if the atheist demonstrates he can speak in tongues to show that he still can, then he is not using it for the purpose it was designed, and so it would be useless noise then.

How can someone who does not have the Holy Spirit speak in tongues at all?

Oscarr said:
Have you heard any pagans speaking in their version of tongues? What does it sound like? It is the same or different to those you have heard praying in tongues in worship to the Living God?

According to the academics who have studied pagan religions it is the same. Whether it sounds the same as yours I don't know. Even in Pentecostalism, tongues sounds different depending on what country you are from. It is well documented that Pentecostals from Russia will be use Russian phonemes in their glossolalia; German Pentecostals will use German phonemes; English speaking Pentecostals use english phonemes, etc. That is because the natural phenomenon of glossolalia draws on the person's existing vocabulary of phonemes, but spoken haphazardly.

Childofgodharrison · Sep 18, 2018

Saint Steven said:
The biblical model says, "No." --- Or at least begs the question.

Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence
of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

What do others know about this?
Have you, or anyone you know, had an experience with the
Baptism with the Holy Spirit that differs from the "norm"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the second of two baptisms for the believer.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we see this pattern established. (but not always in this order)
- Belief
- Repentance
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (typically received through the laying on of hands)

But how do you know that you have received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?
Most would say that tongues follow the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
And that is mostly correct. However, that may not be the case.
Even the biblical model leaves us with questions about the validity of that claim.

And, of course, we need to hear the personal testimonies of those who have experienced something other than the "standard" experience with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Probably the best example of this is found in the passage in the book of the Acts of the Apostles about the new believers in Samaria.

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This follows the established pattern listed above. (also see Acts 2:38-39)

- Belief
- Repentance (assumed)
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (received through the laying on of hands)

They only thing missing in the passage is the evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. We will have to look at other passages for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are examples of the initial evidence of tongues following the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. But notice that in each case there is another manifestation listed. This begs the question of this topic. Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? Or is any manifestation of the Holy Spirit valid evidence? Or in some cases, the manifestations may come later.

Here's what we don't know based on these texts. Did everyone in these examples speak in tongues? Did some have another manifestation instead of tongues? Did everyone manifest tongues but some had a second manifestation? We are not told.

Acts 19:6
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

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. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's another example. No evidence of a manifestation is given other than his miraculous healing. But who would argue that the Apostle Paul did not speak in tongues?

Acts 9:16-19
I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary statement

In Acts 19:6 and Acts 10:44-46 we see a manifestation of something other than tongues listed as evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Namely, prophecy and praising God.

Some may argue that praising "praising God" is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. However, at Pentecost the onlookers exclaimed, "... we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” - Acts 2:11

Sometimes there is no manifestation or laying on of hands. John 3: 6-8
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’
8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit
Anyone can speak in tongues, it just may be another spirit. It's just an utterance. Just hope that your utterance is through the Holy Spirit.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 18, 2018

swordsman1 said:
Genuine believers have been mistaken over many things. Some believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Some believe that that you have to obey the 10 commandments and keep the Saturday sabbath. Some believe in apostolic succession. Some believe that bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ. Being a genuine believer doesn't make you immune to a false teaching or practice, even if it sincerely held to be true, including praying about it. (And no doubt they think the same about my heartfelt beliefs!).

The people I am referring to have admitted they were never Christians at all. They spent many years in the Pentecostal church where they discovered how to 'speak in tongues' as fluently as anyone else in their congregation. Everyone was convinced they were genuine believers. But they had never accepted Christ as their savior, and in due course abandoned it all and declared themselves to be atheist. Yet they can still speak in fluent tongues, just as well as any other Pentecostal.

How can someone who does not have the Holy Spirit speak in tongues at all?

According to the academics who have studied pagan religions it is the same. Whether it sounds the same as yours I don't know. Even in Pentecostalism, tongues sounds different depending on what country you are from. It is well documented that Pentecostals from Russia will be use Russian phonemes in their glossolalia; German Pentecostals will use German phonemes; English speaking Pentecostals use english phonemes, etc. That is because the natural phenomenon of glossolalia draws on the person's existing vocabulary of phonemes, but spoken haphazardly.

I accept all that. It would be silly of me to deny it, given the expert evidence that you have produced.

But a counterfeit can be so like the authentic that it can't be told apart, unless through expert examination. The Scriptural example is the parable of the wheat and the tares. The farmer is not advised to try and weed out the tares for fear of damaging the good wheat. And the Scripture also says that the false prophets will be so persuasive that even the very elect of God could be tricked. Paul said that even in the churches, there will be grievous wolves who will corrupt the flock and draw away disciples to themselves. They will be in sheep's clothing, and be so believable that in some cases only the supernatural gift of discerning of spirits will be able to identify them as false believers, prophets, or teachers. So it is no surprise that we have churches, not only Pentecostal and Charismatic but traditional and evangelical churches as well, that have a mixture of true and false believers and teachers.

But, one of the strongest attributes of God is that He is faithful and does not lie when He gives promises. In the Scripture I quoted about God giving what people ask for, Jesus said, "If a parent, being evil, knows how to give good gifts to his children, how much more does God give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?" This means that when a genuine believer, seeking to honour Christ in his life and prayers, asks for the gift of tongues as shown in 1 Corinthians 14, then that is what he will receive.

But because of all the counterfeits, we cannot, by natural observation, determine whether a person has the genuine gift or not. No one with the genuine gift and who sees it as a sacred way of communicating with God, will speak it in such a way as to dishonour it or the Christ who gave it to him. Therefore no professional linguist will ever hear it, and if someone sneakily records a genuine believer speaking in tongues without his permission, then the recording, being illegal, won't disclose whether it is genuine or not, because the recording was taken with an evil purpose and in an evil manner.

Because genuine tongues is spoken to God and no one else, then He is the only One who can judge whether it is genuine or not. Genuine believers with the gift have to have an attitude of trust when they use it. They would have the attitude that, "Okay, some don't believe that what I pray is nothing more than nonsense, and although it sounds like nonsense to me, I trust God that He understands and appreciates what I am saying, and I will leave the judgment of it to Him and no one else." Who is there in the whole wide world who would have the right to countermand that?

It is best to have the attitude of Gamaliel when he commented to the Sanhedrin concerning the Christian faith. He said that if it is not of God, then it will come to nothing and fade away; but if it is genuine, then we could find ourselves fighting against God."

Alithis · Sep 18, 2018

Sam91 said:
I meant the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When did pentecostals start talking about that?

Twenty years ago it was never mentioned in the pentecostal AoG church I attended for about two years. I didn't speak in tongues but to all intents and purposes was Spirit-filled in their eyes.

I first heard of it from a Christian who listened to an American televangelist preacher 2 years ago. He called it baptism of fire and I read his theories. I disagree with them.

there is a whole new topic breached in this post.
baptism of fire speaks of judgment not "strange fire"

Saint Steven · Sep 18, 2018

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:
I wish they would give a clear and detailed guideline when people attend these types of churches so people know what to expect. Even seasoned Christians who know a lot of scripture (like myself) don't have all the specifics when it comes to speaking in tongues.

This is why I am here on the forum. To help educate and challenge Christians to think about and talk about these things. I appreciate your willingness to share and ask questions. This is an uphill battle.

I came from an Evangelical Protestant background. A nondenominational world missions-minded community church. Manifestations of the Holy Spirit was not a part of our culture. My parents were supportive of the Charismatic movement. They would go to meetings with them in the evenings. My Mom had shoe boxes full of message cassette tapes. That's where I learned about this stuff.

When I started to attend church with these folks as a young adult I wanted scriptural answers. They had nothing. I had to dig it out myself. Fortunately the church I grew up in gave me strong Bible study skills. I had to figure all this out on my own.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 18, 2018

Alithis said:
there is a whole new topic breached in this post.
baptism of fire speaks of judgment not "strange fire"

There is a Scripture that says that He will baptise us with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when something like fire settled on the disciples' heads. Fire also talks of being "fired up" and consumed with love and commitment to Christ through the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit.

Saint Steven · Sep 18, 2018

swordsman1 said:
Samaria was a unique event in church history - the first time anyone outside of Judaism had believed in Christ. The Samaritans and Jews hated each other, so it was necessary for the reception of the Spirit to be delayed until the apostles arrived so they could witness for themselves that the hated Samaritans were now also part of the Church, and for the Samaritans to accept the (Jewish) apostles as it's leaders. That is the only time the Spirit was delayed after Pentecost.

That is clearly an exception to the normal pattern. There are numerous passages in scriptures that state the Spirit is received at conversion: Rom 8:9, Gal 3:2, Gal 3:13-14, Gal 5:5, Eph 1:13, 1 Cor 6:19, Titus 3:5, 1 John 3:24, 1 John 4:13, Acts 2:38, Acts 11:17.

The other instances of tongues in Acts similarly occurred when whole new groups of people became Christians. But there was no delay in those instances. There was definitely no delay with the Gentiles receiving the Spirit in Acts 10. And there was no appreciable delay in the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19, if any at all. They were not Christians when Paul met them at Ephesus. Paul's preaching, the laying on of hands, their speaking in tongues, and their water baptism all happened in quick succession. No precise order is stated - note that it says "When Paul places his hands on them", not "Then Paul placed his hands on them". All we can say is it all happened quickly around the same time.

In Acts tongues was a confirming sign that each of these new groups were now included in the Church. These were unique historical events in the history of the church, not the pattern that we expect to see repeated today.

So you are Cessationist doctrinally?

Saint Steven · Sep 18, 2018

Childofgodharrison said:
Sometimes there is no manifestation or laying on of hands. John 3: 6-8
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’
8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit
Anyone can speak in tongues, it just may be another spirit. It's just an utterance. Just hope that your utterance is through the Holy Spirit.

That has nothing to do with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Saint Steven · Sep 18, 2018

Oscarr said:
There is a Scripture that says that He will baptise us with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when something like fire settled on the disciples' heads. Fire also talks of being "fired up" and consumed with love and commitment to Christ through the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 3:11
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Acts 1:4-5
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Alithis · Sep 18, 2018

Oscarr said:
There is a Scripture that says that He will baptise us with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when something like fire settled on the disciples' heads. Fire also talks of being "fired up" and consumed with love and commitment to Christ through the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit.

they were cloven tongues ... separation- a sign of spiritual circumcision .

not the fire used today
i was into that stuff and teaching for 15 years .. its niot the baptism of fire
he says "he wlil baptised in the holy Spirit AND with fire"( the AND is not the same thing as he does not say he will baptise you with holy spirit fire .. but with the holy spirit AND with fire . fire speaks of testing and purifying it speaks of a very hard thing to go through of testing and persecutions. the baptism of fire speaks far more inline with ALL scripture of that which is "tested by fire " many things now taugh and practiced wil be tested by persecutions and those that are all waffle and rubbish and dross will be burnt up and consumed ..only the genuine work of the holy Spirit will endure the baptism of fire
just as he first baptised the earth in water he wil also do so with fire .. it wil burn up all ungodliness and leave only the pure ..the tried by fire

it has nothing to do with the "fire people are being caught up in now days in many false doctrines and wobbling shaking goosebumps and musically generated atmospheres all geared around bless me bless me attitudes .it has nothing to do with goose feathers and gold dust seeking which effect no true change of heart and repentance from repetitive sin in people who seek after sensual experiences .having been in and through all that i cant testify ,it was false . And devils parade around in it all unhindered by any discernment

Childofgodharrison · Sep 18, 2018

Saint Steven said:
That has nothing to do with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Yes it does. The Holy Spirit is the one who puts you into the body of Christ. There may be some who will never come across someone who can lay hands on them. Do you think God will penalize them and not give his spirit? Of course not. Being born of the spirit is being baptized by the Holy Spirit.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 18, 2018

Alithis said:
they were cloven tongues ... separation- a sign of spiritual circumcision .

True.

it has nothing to do with the "fire people are being caught up in now days in many false doctrines and wobbling shaking goosebumps and musically generated atmospheres all geared around bless me bless me attitudes .it has nothing to do with goose feathers and gold dust seeking which effect no true change of heart and repentance from repetitive sin in people who seek after sensual experiences .having been in and through all that i cant testify ,it was false . And devils parade around in it all unhindered by any discernment

Looks like a generalisation to me. Give us some specific details of what you have personally experienced.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 18, 2018

Childofgodharrison said:
Yes it does. The Holy Spirit is the one who puts you into the body of Christ. There may be some who will never come across someone who can lay hands on them. Do you think God will penalize them and not give his spirit? Of course not. Being born of the spirit is being baptized by the Holy Spirit.

That's what Paul says in Galatians 5. He says that born again Christians live in the Spirit. He goes on to say that if we live in the Spirit, we need to walk in the Spirit. Although using the gifts is part of it, he is concentrating on our conduct and behaviour in this chapter.

Childofgodharrison · Sep 18, 2018

Oscarr said:
That's what Paul says in Galatians 5. He says that born again Christians live in the Spirit. He goes on to say that if we live in the Spirit, we need to walk in the Spirit. Although using the gifts is part of it, he is concentrating on our conduct and behaviour in this chapter.

Yes we should be healing the sick and casting out demons just as they did, but in the deception of today it is not done. There are a few who do it. The ones in the churches who are called Christian don't do it.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 18, 2018

Childofgodharrison said:
Yes we should be healing the sick and casting out demons just as they did, but in the deception of today it is not done. There are a few who do it. The ones in the churches who are called Christian don't do it.

Which Christian groups are actually deceived? And if they are getting the sick healed and demons cast out through a spirit of deception, what spirit is enabling you to heal the sick and cast out demons?

Emli · Sep 19, 2018

Alithis said:
they were cloven tongues ... separation- a sign of spiritual circumcision .

not the fire used today
i was into that stuff and teaching for 15 years .. its niot the baptism of fire
he says "he wlil baptised in the holy Spirit AND with fire"( the AND is not the same thing as he does not say he will baptise you with holy spirit fire .. but with the holy spirit AND with fire . fire speaks of testing and purifying it speaks of a very hard thing to go through of testing and persecutions. the baptism of fire speaks far more inline with ALL scripture of that which is "tested by fire " many things now taugh and practiced wil be tested by persecutions and those that are all waffle and rubbish and dross will be burnt up and consumed ..only the genuine work of the holy Spirit will endure the baptism of fire
just as he first baptised the earth in water he wil also do so with fire .. it wil burn up all ungodliness and leave only the pure ..the tried by fire

it has nothing to do with the "fire people are being caught up in now days in many false doctrines and wobbling shaking goosebumps and musically generated atmospheres all geared around bless me bless me attitudes .it has nothing to do with goose feathers and gold dust seeking which effect no true change of heart and repentance from repetitive sin in people who seek after sensual experiences .having been in and through all that i cant testify ,it was false . And devils parade around in it all unhindered by any discernment

I agree, and that is exactly what God has taught me as well. We are refined by fire, by going through fiery trials. And we become refined by having faith in God, and our faith and the work of the Holy Spirit inside us is the only thing that should last when the trial is over. Just like Jesus became obedient through suffering, so we become worthy by suffering like Him, and in Him. Almost all the fruit that the Holy Spirit has produced in me has come from suffering through trials and persecution. It's how I became obedient to God, how I learned to trust that He is with me always to save me (like with Daniel in the fire pit) and how I learned how to rely on Him and keep my eyes on Him at all times.

Praise God!

Silly Uncle Wayne · Sep 19, 2018

Saint Steven said:
Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence
of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

The principle theological arguments in favour of tongues as evidence has always been derived from Luke and personally has always sounded more like wishful thinking than reasoning.

a) The older theology from early Pentecostalism (Carter, Gee) is that since three events (Pentecost; Cornelius & Ephesus) include tongues as evidence this indicates that the Samaria and Paul's baptism also had tongues.

The problem with this is that the precedent, if any, would be established in the first few instances and since two of the first three incidents don't include tongues, so clearly no precedent is being established at all... except that there is no set way of doing things.

b) more recent Pentecostal theologians (Petts) have implied that Samaria is an incomplete record, that Luke missed out things that he didn't know about, so the implication that Simon Magus 'saw' something is not complete. and therefore it was tongues.

There are a lot of problems with this, primarily that of implying that Luke's record is incomplete and therefore tongues was the likely thing being seen. If Luke knew that tongues was being spoken, why not just put it in rather than leave it vague. I can't help thinking that the 'tongues as initial evidence' was as foreign to Luke as it is to most people today. In essence this is adding in evidence where it does not exist to make a theology and a poor one at that.

Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

Senior Veteran

Child of the Living God

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Disciple of Jesus .

You can call me Steve

Senior Veteran

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Disciple of Jesus .

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Growing daughter of God

Well-Known Member

Similar threads