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

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
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.
It amuses me to see folks fail to just read the New Testament and take it at face value, instead of trying to read stuff into it that is not there. For example, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 are clear as the nose on our faces that Paul includes tongues as a normal part of Christian experience and life. And that tongues and interpretation are included in the gifts and ministries of the Church.

In fact, 1 Corinthians 12 13 and 14 are all the same passage without the chapter divisions (put in later for easy reference). Most folk will accept 1 Corinthians 13 without question, but reject 12 and 14. How can people cherry pick part of what Paul says and reject another? Either we accept all of what Paul says or none of it.

This is what I think is the issue centred around the prejudice:
"I don't believe that tongues is for today" (basic belief)
"Therefore all folk who speak in tongues today are deceived"
"Paul taught the use of tongues only for the early Church and it does not apply today"

The alternative is:
"I believe that tongues is for today"
"Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 are for modern believers"
"Those who receive the gift are receiving the genuine article"

The fact is, if folk are going to reject parts of 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, they have to reject 1 Corinthians 13, and the teaching about the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12, and actually, all the rest of 1 Corinthians, because if parts of it are not for today, then none of it is.

And we could go from the sublime to the ridiculous and say that if 1 Corinthians is not for today, then none of Paul's letters are for today. and applies only to the Early Church of the First Century AD.

Therefore, Paul was lying when he said that 1 Corinthians was written not only for the Corinthians but for all believers everywhere, for whom the Lord shall call, including believers of every century right up to the modern day.

So, we can see the ridiculousness of cherry picking parts of Paul's writing that we decide to accept and parts we don't.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
Thanks. It sounds as if we really aren't that far apart doctrinally. Typically believers that don't speak in tongues aren't comfortable with it. I get that. It is rather strange.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
That only works if you believe there is only one baptism.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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.

Even if those tongues were genuine NT tongues, God would not be pleased about such tongues being spoken in private. Scripture says that spiritual gifts are supposed to be used for the benefit of others (1 Cor 12:7, 1 Pet 4:10).
 
Upvote 0

daydreamer40

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2018
419
118
inverness
✟17,968.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Even if those tongues were genuine NT tongues, God would not be pleased about such tongues being spoken in private. Scripture says that spiritual gifts are supposed to be used for the benefit of others (1 Cor 12:7, 1 Pet 4:10).
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
1Cor14:18&19
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Even if those tongues were genuine NT tongues, God would not be pleased about such tongues being spoken in private. Scripture says that spiritual gifts are supposed to be used for the benefit of others (1 Cor 12:7, 1 Pet 4:10).
So what did Paul mean when the person who speaks in tongues edifies himself? Was he wrong here?

How do you know that God would be displeased with someone praying to Him privately in tongues? Has He told you that?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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.

We need to be careful to make the distinction between the indwelling, the baptism, and the filling of the Holy Spirit. They are not the same thing. Indwelling and baptism of the Spirit occur once at conversion. While fillings of the Spirit are repeated episodes throughout a believers life. And the more often we are filled with the Spirit and bring ourselves under his influence the better. However the filling of the Spirit is not characterized by tongues, but by joy and boldness.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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. :)

Exactly. The purpose of tongues in Acts was to show that whole new groups of people were now being included in the Church. They too had been given the Holy Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
We need to be careful to make the distinction between the indwelling, the baptism, and the filling of the Holy Spirit. They are not the same thing. Indwelling and baptism of the Spirit occur once at conversion. While fillings of the Spirit are repeated episodes throughout a believers life. And the more often we are filled with the Spirit and bring ourselves under his influence the better. However the filling of the Spirit is not characterized by tongues, but by joy and boldness.
A person living and walking in the Spirit is loving, joyful, peaceable, kind, gentle, good, patient, faithful, and self controlled in his conduct and behaviour. I would say that having all these as part of our behaviour is the most compelling evidence of a Spirit-filled life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
This is what I think is the issue centred around the prejudice:
"I don't believe that tongues is for today" (basic belief)
"Therefore all folk who speak in tongues today are deceived"
"Paul taught the use of tongues only for the early Church and it does not apply today"

The alternative is:
"I believe that tongues is for today"
"Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 are for modern believers"
"Those who receive the gift are receiving the genuine article"

The fact is, if folk are going to reject parts of 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, they have to reject 1 Corinthians 13, and the teaching about the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12, and actually, all the rest of 1 Corinthians, because if parts of it are not for today, then none of it is.

And we could go from the sublime to the ridiculous and say that if 1 Corinthians is not for today, then none of Paul's letters are for today. and applies only to the Early Church of the First Century AD.

Therefore, Paul was lying when he said that 1 Corinthians was written not only for the Corinthians but for all believers everywhere, for whom the Lord shall call, including believers of every century right up to the modern day.

So, we can see the ridiculousness of cherry picking parts of Paul's writing that we decide to accept and parts we don't.

Whether you think tongues has ceased or not, I think the more pertinent question that needs to be asked is whether the practice that has surfaced in the last 100 years the real NT gift of tongues or something else. The answer is out there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Exactly. The purpose of tongues in Acts was to show that whole new groups of people were now being included in the Church. They too had been given the Holy Spirit.
I fully agree with you there. It goes along with Peter's statement in Acts 2, "Repent and be baptised in the Name of Jesus and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Reading the statement as is, it shows that the three things go together at the same time. If it was meant to be a subsequent event according to Peter, he would have said "and sometime later you will receive the gift...etc."

This overrules the statement of Jesus: "Tarry in Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high" because that was before Pentecost. Peter's statement was at Pentecost after the Holy Spirit had arrived. Of course if the purists who believe Jesus' statement, then they would have to travel to Jerusalem and wait for the baptism with the Spirit there! ^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^

(Wait for the howls of protest from the AOG oriented folk!! :) )
 
  • Like
Reactions: swordsman1
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
1Cor14:18&19

That verse doesn't imply Paul contradicted scripture and spoke in tongues in private.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
So what did Paul mean when the person who speaks in tongues edifies himself? Was he wrong here?

The point Paul was making in 1 Cor 14:4 was the Corinthians were only edifying themselves when they spoke in uninterpreted tongues when they should have been edifying the church as per the stated purpose of the gifts. There is a "but" immediately after Paul said "One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself", indicating a deficiency. It was a negative statement, not a positive one.

How do you know that God would be displeased with someone praying to Him privately in tongues? Has He told you that?

Yes, he has. He has told us all the purpose of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:7 and 1 Pet 4:10.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
A person living and walking in the Spirit is loving, joyful, peaceable, kind, gentle, good, patient, faithful, and self controlled in his conduct and behaviour. I would say that have all these as part of our behaviour is the most compelling evidence of a Spirit-filled life.

Agreed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: marineimaging
Upvote 0

Childofgodharrison

Active Member
Aug 27, 2018
279
66
59
Abilene
✟34,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
That is what I mean, I don't go to church. I came out of the Church about 18 years ago. I came into the knowledge of many things. Some people were telling me that I was wrong for not attending Church. It didn't do any good to try to explain anything to them. I learned from an Apostle for about 5 years or so. I still listen to him from time to time. I have been on my own. Living by the Spirit. Then I backslid. I was thrown to the demons. Now I have got it right. I want do that again. I am now on the right track. That's why I said I may as well leave this site. My understanding about several things are different, and those who call themselves Christian think that I have lost my mind. It gets tiring sometimes, but I have to stick with what I know is true. Part of the great deception is Christianity. Jesus did not have a church. He still does not have a church. The bible use the word Church, but it means a called out people. The body of Christ is not a bunch of congregated bodies. He has only one body. They are just broken off pieces of the catholic church. Even though they teach different things its still a form of the catholic church. All the other religions are too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We need to be careful to make the distinction between the indwelling, the baptism, and the filling of the Holy Spirit. They are not the same thing. Indwelling and baptism of the Spirit occur once at conversion. While fillings of the Spirit are repeated episodes throughout a believers life. And the more often we are filled with the Spirit and bring ourselves under his influence the better. However the filling of the Spirit is not characterized by tongues, but by joy and boldness.
From your perspective what is the difference between the "indwelling" and the "baptism of the Spirit"? You say they both happen at conversion. Why two things that have to do with the Spirit, yet you deny what we call the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, as a separate baptism from water baptism.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I wasn't surprised to find posters on this topic that are against tongues. What surprised me the most was of those supportive of tongues that didn't support the Baptism with the Holy Spirit as a separate experience from conversion and water baptism. It is so clear to me from scripture that this was the pattern established in the Acts of the Apostles. I'm not trying to the workings of the Spirit in a box, but I thought the standard was obvious.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Whether you think tongues has ceased or not, I think the more pertinent question that needs to be asked is whether the practice that has surfaced in the last 100 years the real NT gift of tongues or something else. The answer is out there.
I agree that there is a lot of misuse of the gift, and that muddies the waters a lot when trying to distinguish the genuine from the counterfeit. I think that if people used the gift as Paul taught it, then you would never hear it spoken in a church without an interpretation, and a lot of the "spooky-spiritual" stuff associated with it would not exist.

The last time I attended a Pentecostal service, the pastor had everyone stand during the worship part of the service and went around whispering in people's ear, "Jesus is here". This caused many to shake and shimmy and some fell over. He tried it with me but no way was I going to do any of those things. There was a woman writhing around the floor like a snake and I told the pastor that the woman needs deliverance. I don't think he liked me telling him that about one of the "spiritual" women in his church! I decided not to go back to his church because that was too much "spooky-spiritual" stuff for me. I was glad to get back to my Presbyterian church where people had some degree of normality about them. Although I believe that we can and should use the gifts to build up the body, I don't think that we should be spooky about it.

In my experience with Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is that I have noticed that the pastors and elders never went into the spooky stuff like shaking, talking loudly in tongues, falling over, rolling on the floor, or anything like that. If that is the result of Christian maturity, then it says something about the transition between immaturity and maturity in the Christian faith.

When God revealed Himself to me in the middle of a park in the dead of night (right away from the froth and hype of any church), I asked Him why I don't have visions, falling over, shaking, or any of that stuff happening to me. He told me that I didn't need them, because I have His presence in my life and that is all I need.

I learned that if I am living and walking in the Spirit and have the fruit of the Spirit evident in my conduct, then I don't need these other manifestations to prove to others that I am Spirit-filled and walking with Christ.

(I know you will be tempted to wind me up by saying I don't need tongues either!! :) :) )
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I wasn't surprised to find posters on this topic that are against tongues. What surprised me the most was of those supportive of tongues that didn't support the Baptism with the Holy Spirit as a separate experience from conversion and water baptism. It is so clear to me from scripture that this was the pattern established in the Acts of the Apostles. I'm not trying to the workings of the Spirit in a box, but I thought the standard was obvious.
I don't have a problem with either way (immediate or subsequent), because it is according to a person's faith. But the fruit of the indwelling Spirit is immediate in its germination although it takes time to be fully developed (through sanctification), and the manifestation of the gifts appear as the believer gains a bit of maturity after the novice period. I think there has to be a time of apprenticeship and training before being able to exercise some gifts that involve a level of responsibility in their use. A lot of harm has been caused by immature, inexperienced novices trying to use prophecy, words of knowledge, and discerning of spirits, before they are properly trained in the use of them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
That verse doesn't imply Paul contradicted scripture and spoke in tongues in private.
Where did he speak in tongues then, if not in the church? If he did all his speaking of tongues in the church, why did he say "but in the church..." If he always spoke in tongues in church then that phrase would be nonsense.
 
Upvote 0