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

Saint Steven · Sep 19, 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.

Nope. The indwelling Spirit we receive at salvation/conversion is not the same as the Baptism with the Holy Spirit which comes on a person that seeks it. I agree that all believers have the former. Not all have the latter.

Saint Steven · Sep 19, 2018

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
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.

Thanks for the detailed reply.
I'm amazed at the way these texts are picked over by opponents. From that perspective maybe I shouldn't be surprised. They have a preconception to prove. They are creating a case against tongues because they don't believe in it. But they are being intellectually dishonest.

It seems to me that the "What is it?" question was answered in Acts chapter two. Peter explained that the tongues they were all hearing were the prophesied outpouring. This was a whole new thing. This was the Holy Spirit that they could receive, with the evidence of tongues. So, when Peter asked them to repent and be baptized in water to receive the Holy Spirit, they expected to receive tongues. That was the evidence.

In Samaria the Apostles needed to lay hands on the new believers, "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 8:16

If you ask those who don't believe in tongues what the evidence is that someone has received the Holy Spirit, they name something that would take time to reveal itself. Yet in this text we see something immediate. Scripture below.

Those who are anti-tongues look at this passage and say that tongues is not mentioned. That is the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned earlier. What was the evidence that these new believers had received the Holy Spirit? Immediate evidence that happened when the Apostles laid hands on them. Two questions.

1) How did they know they had NOT received the Holy Spirit?
2) How did they know they HAD received the Holy Spirit? (immediately)

Acts 8:15-17
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.

Saint Steven · Sep 19, 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.

I had a similar experience at my church. No one talked about it. I came there for the teaching, but there was none. To my amazement they were interested in my teaching. They had me teaching adult Sunday School. It was good, and what God wanted me to do at the time. But I had to dig the answers out on my own. That was 30 years ago. I am still at the same church. It has changed names three or four times and had 10 or 12 different Pastors. But still there.

Saint Steven · Sep 19, 2018

marineimaging said:
I do believe in a literal position that if God wanted two peoples to come together, they could understand each others tongue if it was ordained by God. But I can't see whereas man could invoke the speaking in tongues if it were not understood because God is not the author of confusion and that would be just that. Confusion.

If someone testifies that God spoke to them, do you accept their testimony? If someone prayed for the sick and they were healed would you acknowledge that the healing was from God?

If you can accept those as miracle gifts, why would you reject the rest? Is tongues wrong simply because you don't like it? What are you afraid of?

Lily of Valleys · Sep 19, 2018

Oscarr said:
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.

Luke 11:13 specifically refers to giving the Holy Spirit, not giving a spiritual gift or something in general though.

God has the sovereignty to decide whether to give a particular spiritual gift to an individual. He will only give us what we ask if it is according to His will. If He gave us whatever we asked, then He would be our genie instead of us being His servant.

This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. (1 John 5:14 NASB)

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11 NASB)

We can pray to God in our own language and even in our thoughts and in our spirit. We can also praise God and honour Christ without knowing tongues. What would be the most common motivations of people who feel that they need the gift of tongues, especially when they don't even understand what they are saying?

How does the gift of tongues as a prayer language honour Christ if it is supposed to only edify oneself?

One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. (1 Corinthians 14:4 NASB)

Childofgodharrison · Sep 19, 2018

Oscarr said:
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?

The churches where I live pray for people , but they do not cast out demons. I may have to just leave this website because my beliefs are totally different, and I was told last night that I cannot accuse anyone of not being a true believer in Christ. I believe the church bodies have been deceived. The body of Christ is without the many body assemblies. It's just a people not belonging to any institution. If anyone is getting the sick healed and casting out demons, Jesus said that who ever is for us is not against us. So we let them do so. He also says there will be many come to me and say we cast out demons in your name and he said, depart from me, I never knew you. I'm not saying that they are not believers in Christ, but what I am saying is that they need to grow up.

marineimaging · Sep 19, 2018

Saint Steven said:
If someone testifies that God spoke to them, do you accept their testimony? If someone prayed for the sick and they were healed would you acknowledge that the healing was from God?

If you can accept those as miracle gifts, why would you reject the rest? Is tongues wrong simply because you don't like it? What are you afraid of?

First, where I am coming from; I attend a Baptist church in Texas. "We believe that all Scripture is divinely inspired and serves as the final authority in all matters of belief and behavior (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Therefore, we value Bible-centered preaching and teaching as the foundation for all that we do."

Secondly, very specifically to your question the issue of the Holy Spirit speaking with clear understanding is one thing. When Jesus ascended He sent the Holy Spirit to be here for us. "John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." So, in answer to your question, "If someone testifies that God spoke to them, do you accept their testimony? If someone prayed for the sick and they were healed would you acknowledge that the healing was from God?" Yes, absolutely. And as to hearing the Holy Spirit...

Case in point. First, I was not supposed to be at my daughters home that weekend but I felt compelled to go. After arriving my granddaughter said she heard the Holy Spirit tell her that she was needed in mission ministry. Through her countenance I could tell she meant it. But, she also wanted to go help those in Haiti after the earthquake. I tell you that the Holy Spirit told me how to handle it and I look back and knew that was why I was there. I said that at 14 years old she was way too young to go on her own. Later, she could but she had a lot more to learn before she did make that commitment. She didn't argue with me because the conversation was laced with scripture about being called to serve. I could see that she understood and wanted desperately to know more. So, she graduated high school in the top tier of her class with scholarships and support through their church and is attending a bible college near Ft. Worth, TX. That girl is going to be a missionary and I believe that her heart will be tuned to the Holy Spirit all of her life.

Hear and abide by the Holy Spirit? Yes, absolutely..., but in my language and I hear as an understanding, AND it does not conflict with Biblical instruction. The communication I understand and embrace from the Holy Spirit is a quiet, still voice in my head that some say is just the conscience speaking something I already knew. I know better, and it ALWAYS aligns with Biblical teaching and seems to come at a time when it is necessary and essential for my spiritual growth. Would the Holy Spirit tell me to kill someone? I would reject that to my own demise. Would the Holy Spirit instruct me to love a murderer? I believe yes.

So, my issue is not with the Holy Spirit communicating with us or hearing our petition. It is about open vocalizations I have heard in Pentecostal churches where people begin speaking what sounds like "gibberish" and NOBODY in the congregation can understand anything about their behavior. I have a good friend next door who I have spoken to about this and he said that even their pastor is also cautious about somebody "claiming" the Holy Spirit through tongues. He also said not all churches are so disciplined.

To be honest, as far as speaking in tongues, I admit that I don't have a solid answer for the world as a whole. My answer is for me and my house. As far as someone else's relationship with the Holy Spirit, I do not and will not say "No! That is impossible. You can't, don't, won't, shouldn't be able to... and so on." I do not know enough to know what God has in store for each of us so I will not take it upon myself to completely reject your calling for we are all called to different understandings and tasks for those who love the Lord.

marineimaging · Sep 19, 2018

Childofgodharrison said:
The churches where I live pray for people , but they do not cast out demons. I may have to just leave this website because my beliefs are totally different, and I was told last night that I cannot accuse anyone of not being a true believer in Christ. I believe the church bodies have been deceived. The body of Christ is without the many body assemblies. It's just a people not belonging to any institution. If anyone is getting the sick healed and casting out demons, Jesus said that who ever is for us is not against us. So we let them do so. He also says there will be many come to me and say we cast out demons in your name and he said, depart from me, I never knew you. I'm not saying that they are not believers in Christ, but what I am saying is that they need to grow up.

You don't need to leave the forum. There are other places on here to enjoy and grow your relationships with people and with Christ.

swordsman1 · Sep 19, 2018

Oscarr said:
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.

Well that is the usual get-out when it is pointed out that non-Christians also speak in glossolalia - arbitrarily declare them to be counterfeit, even though for all intents and purposes they are identical. A more plausible explanation I think is that Pentecostal tongues is the exact same thing as non-Christian tongues ie nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but rather an experience of the flesh. The tongues of the ex-pentecostal atheists not only sounds 'fluent' but they would have received it in the exact same manner. Not gradually learning by mimicking others., but it suddenly 'clicking' when they discovered the technique. A counterfeit takes time to fake. No doubt there are also plenty who do gradually learn to mimic what they hear. But those are counterfeits of a counterfeit!

Although most today's glossalalists genuinely believe they are speaking in NT tongues, the reality I believe is they are not. Today's practice does not match the biblical description of the gift and linguistic research has shown that it is not a language of any kind. Even Gordon Fee, Pentecostalism's most respected theologian, refuses to affirm that today's practice is NT tongues. The most he is prepared to say is that it is something analogous to NT tongues.

Oscarr said:
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.

There is no promise that says God will always give tongues to those who ask. The verse your quote is about people asking for the Holy Spirit himself, not the gifts.

Oscarr said:
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.

There are thousands of recordings made by Pentecostals themselves and put on you-tube which linguists are to free study. So you cannot say those recordings were made with evil intent, and therefore invalid. Even if a recording was made covertly that doesn't alter the sounds recorded.

Oscarr said:
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?

But according to scripture tongues are known human languages, so any linguist is free to analyse what is spoken and tell if it is a genuine language or not. Just as the unregenerate crowd at Pentecost did. The undoubted conclusion is that is today's tongues is not a language of any kind.

Oscarr said:
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."

Mormonism didn't fade away. JW's didn't fade away. Catholicism didn't fade away (if you believe Protestantism to be true), and vice versa. There is always an ongoing fight against false teaching.

swordsman1 · Sep 19, 2018

Saint Steven said:
Nope. The indwelling Spirit we receive at salvation/conversion is not the same as the Baptism with the Holy Spirit which comes on a person that seeks it. I agree that all believers have the former. Not all have the latter.

But Scripture says otherwise. It says all believers are baptized in the Spirit so as to become part of the body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:13 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."

If you are not baptized in the Spirit you are not part of the body of Christ.

swordsman1 · Sep 19, 2018

Saint Steven said:
It seems to me that the "What is it?" question was answered in Acts chapter two. Peter explained that the tongues they were all hearing were the prophesied outpouring. This was a whole new thing. This was the Holy Spirit that they could receive, with the evidence of tongues. So, when Peter asked them to repent and be baptized in water to receive the Holy Spirit, they expected to receive tongues. That was the evidence.

In Samaria the Apostles needed to lay hands on the new believers, "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 8:16

If you ask those who don't believe in tongues what the evidence is that someone has received the Holy Spirit, they name something that would take time to reveal itself. Yet in this text we see something immediate. Scripture below.

Those who are anti-tongues look at this passage and say that tongues is not mentioned. That is the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned earlier. What was the evidence that these new believers had received the Holy Spirit? Immediate evidence that happened when the Apostles laid hands on them. Two questions.

The evidence tongues provided was that whole new groups of people were now included in the Church: Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, Disciples of John. The conclusion the apostles' came to in response to the Gentiles speaking in tongues was not "We see Cornelius has received the 2nd blessing" it was “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18). We never see individual converts speaking in tongues in Acts.

Monk Brendan · Sep 19, 2018

marineimaging said:
So, if I understand what some are saying, Romans 10:9 falls short of the course because "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" is not enough? That it requires the work of someone else (the laying on of somebody elses hands or the confirmation by another person) to complete that which Jesus died on the cross to accomplish? That Jesus' death and Resurrection and ascension to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Fater was not sufficient?

Sorry, but don't confuse getting into a relationship with Christ, and being filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit. The two are different events.

Childofgodharrison · Sep 19, 2018

marineimaging said:
You don't need to leave the forum. There are other places on here to enjoy and grow your relationships with people and with Christ.

Where else is that.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 19, 2018

Lily of Valleys said:
Luke 11:13 specifically refers to giving the Holy Spirit, not giving a spiritual gift or something in general though.

God has the sovereignty to decide whether to give a particular spiritual gift to an individual. He will only give us what we ask if it is according to His will. If He gave us whatever we asked, then He would be our genie instead of us being His servant.

This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. (1 John 5:14 NASB)

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11 NASB)

We can pray to God in our own language and even in our thoughts and in our spirit. We can also praise God and honour Christ without knowing tongues. What would be the most common motivations of people who feel that they need the gift of tongues, especially when they don't even understand what they are saying?

How does the gift of tongues as a prayer language honour Christ if it is supposed to only edify oneself?

One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. (1 Corinthians 14:4 NASB)

Firstly, is Paul encouraging folk to do something that may not be always God's will for them when he says that he would that they all spoke in tongues? Was he not inspired by the Holy Spirit when he said that?

He also said that he thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than them all. He also said "Be followers of me as I am of Christ." Whoops! Does that mean that we follow him in the area of tongues as well? What about the other place where he said that he would that they be as he is. So if he spoke in tongues more than them all, and we are to follow him and be as he is, then because tongues was a large part of his spiritual life, why then, should we not follow him in that as well?

Now, he said BUT IN THE CHURCH...
What did he mean by that? He spoke in tongues more than them all...where did he do that if not in the church? He must have did his speaking in tongues somewhere else. Does this mean that he makes a distinction between tongues spoken personally outside of the church meeting, and the tongue that is spoken out in a meeting which requires an interpretation?

What do you think Paul mean by "edifying himself"? We know that tongues spoken out in church with an interpretation edifies the church because of the interpretation; but what of all the times Paul spoke in tongues outside of the church when he was alone with God? If he was edifying himself, how was he doing that? Perhaps he was enhancing his experience and fellowship with God through it, and therefore edifying (or building up) his faith and dependence on Christ. What is so wrong with that? If using tongues to God in prayer builds up our faith in Christ and enhances our fellowship with Him, then it not, as you imply, some kind of humanistic building up of ones own self apart from Christ (that is, a type of New Age building up of ones own self).

So, are you implying that those who speak and pray in tongues are engaging in a type of New Age spirituality, which is not of Christ but through a wrong spirit (ie: of the devil)?

Just a few thoughts to chew on.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 19, 2018

Childofgodharrison said:
The churches where I live pray for people , but they do not cast out demons. I may have to just leave this website because my beliefs are totally different, and I was told last night that I cannot accuse anyone of not being a true believer in Christ. I believe the church bodies have been deceived. The body of Christ is without the many body assemblies. It's just a people not belonging to any institution. If anyone is getting the sick healed and casting out demons, Jesus said that who ever is for us is not against us. So we let them do so. He also says there will be many come to me and say we cast out demons in your name and he said, depart from me, I never knew you. I'm not saying that they are not believers in Christ, but what I am saying is that they need to grow up.

What puzzles me is what evidence can you produce that makes you believe that all the churches are deceived. It sounds to me like, "Everyone is deceived except you and me, and I'm not so sure about you."

If you are saying that all the churches are deceived, what about the one you go to? How do you know that there is not deception there as well. Can you really trust the teaching that you are getting through that church. How do you know whether your teachers are teaching from the Holy Spirit or another spirit?

I'm not accusing anyone, but merely asking questions.

I think that the most damaging deception in many churches is that they believe and teaching that doing good works will make them acceptable to God, while Paul is quite adamant that trying to please God through good works leads to a curse rather than a blessing, and is actually a rejection of Christ. They may not be disclosing this publicly and may be giving lip service to grace; but once they get folk to become members, they give them the written and unwritten rules that would qualify them to become full members. This is why we don't see any evidence of the involvement of the Holy Spirit is such churches. He will not involve Himself in any group which rejects Christ by imposing religious rules on people and say that if they break them they will be committing unrepentant sin and lose their salvation.

Alithis · Sep 19, 2018

Emli said:
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!

we begin to know true communion in our lord Jesus.. God bless you

Emli · Sep 19, 2018

Alithis said:
we begin to know true communion in our lord Jesus.. God bless you

Amen! And God bless you too!

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 19, 2018

swordsman1 said:
Well that is the usual get-out when it is pointed out that non-Christians also speak in glossolalia - arbitrarily declare them to be counterfeit, even though for all intents and purposes they are identical. A more plausible explanation I think is that Pentecostal tongues is the exact same thing as non-Christian tongues ie nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but rather an experience of the flesh. The tongues of the ex-pentecostal atheists not only sounds 'fluent' but they would have received it in the exact same manner. Not gradually learning by mimicking others., but it suddenly 'clicking' when they discovered the technique. A counterfeit takes time to fake. No doubt there are also plenty who do gradually learn to mimic what they hear. But those are counterfeits of a counterfeit!

Although most today's glossalalists genuinely believe they are speaking in NT tongues, the reality I believe is they are not. Today's practice does not match the biblical description of the gift and linguistic research has shown that it is not a language of any kind. Even Gordon Fee, Pentecostalism's most respected theologian, refuses to affirm that today's practice is NT tongues. The most he is prepared to say is that it is something analogous to NT tongues.

There is no promise that says God will always give tongues to those who ask. The verse your quote is about people asking for the Holy Spirit himself, not the gifts.

There are thousands of recordings made by Pentecostals themselves and put on you-tube which linguists are to free study. So you cannot say those recordings were made with evil intent, and therefore invalid. Even if a recording was made covertly that doesn't alter the sounds recorded.

But according to scripture tongues are known human languages, so any linguist is free to analyse what is spoken and tell if it is a genuine language or not. Just as the unregenerate crowd at Pentecost did. The undoubted conclusion is that is today's tongues is not a language of any kind.

Mormonism didn't fade away. JW's didn't fade away. Catholicism didn't fade away (if you believe Protestantism to be true), and vice versa. There is always an ongoing fight against false teaching.

I'm not going to try and give answers again to all this, because we have ploughed over this ground many times before over the years, haven't we?

But, the bottom line is, when a person is alone with God, praying in tongues, believing that God listens and understands, then it has to be between that believer and God Himself. Therefore in that environment God can be the only judge. If we get to meet Jesus personally in glory and He tells me that I had been praying nonsense all my life, I would say, "Too bad, how sad", and get on with enjoying being with Him for the rest of eternity, because we won't need anything like tongues to fellowship with Him there.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 19, 2018

swordsman1 said:
But Scripture says otherwise. It says all believers are baptized in the Spirit so as to become part of the body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:13 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."

If you are not baptized in the Spirit you are not part of the body of Christ.

There are two schools of thought about that, and I think the AOG doctrinal position of the baptism with the Spirit being a subsequent event from conversion is the way it happened in the early days of the movement.

I think that the notion that God has to do someone in just one way and not others, is a misunderstanding of the various ways that a person can receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit. In Acts, we had at least three ways: the falling of the Spirit on Cornelius household as soon as they received the gospel; the Ephesian disciples (who had repented) who did not know of any Holy Spirit, when they had the better way (like Apollos), the Holy Spirit filled them; and the Samaritans, who were converted to Christ, and the Apostles came and laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So, if a person believes that he has received the Holy Spirit in His fullness at conversion who is to say that he didn't? And if a person gets converted to Christ but does not know anything about the Holy Spirit and has hands laid on him to receive the Holy Spirit, who is to say that he is not now filled with the Spirit.

If a person is filled with the Spirit, then I don't think he will be too concerned about how it took place, but now that he has the fullness of the Spirit, he can get on with serving Christ in the power of the Spirit.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 19, 2018

swordsman1 said:
The evidence tongues provided was that whole new groups of people were now included in the Church: Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, Disciples of John. The conclusion the apostles' came to in response to the Gentiles speaking in tongues was not "We see Cornelius has received the 2nd blessing" it was “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18). We never see individual converts speaking in tongues in Acts.

They said that because Peter reported that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius' house in the same way it fell on the Apostles at Pentecost, along with tongues. This is what showed the Apostles that God had granted the Gentiles repentance. Comprehension 101.

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

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Texas Baptist now living in Colorado

Texas Baptist now living in Colorado

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Disciple of Jesus .

Growing daughter of God

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads