You have me rather intrigued as I have never come close to supporting the views of the AoG when it comes to the reception of the Holy Spirit, where their view is one of
subsequence and my own, which is undoubtedly the majority view of most contemporary
charismatics and certainly all n
on-classic Pentecostals, is that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is
soteriological where all born again Believers receive the BHS at the point of their initiation/conversion, irrespective if they speak in tongues or not
. This is why I posed the question “
Could you maybe explain why Bob’s comments are unBiblical” as they were not my own.
As you have stated that you have had a history of attendance within the AoG then this is something that I would have thought should have been obvious to you right back at the start of this thread. Now I grant that many people may or may have attended a small congregation within their particular denomination, where the level of teaching could be best described as being rudimentary, so it could be that you had the misfortune of attending such a congregation; but I’m still intrigued as to why you could not pick up that my views stand square against the doctrinal position of the AoG!
For the Believer who is open to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, be it with tongues, prophecy, healing etc, they definitely tend to be more "powerful" in ministry which is why Pentecostal and charismatic missionaries have been far more successful with reaching people groups that have been traditionally resistant to the Gospel.
Well, I actually stated that there has been vigorous debate over the past 30 or so years and not a century, where prior to the Charismatic Renewal of the late 60’s and 70’s there was understandably very little interest being shown from within the Evangelical denominations toward the distinctive views of denominations such as the AoG, where classic-Pentecostal (i.e., AoG) views regarding the reception of the Holy Spirit were
rightfully deemed to be non-Biblical.
As for the classic-Pentecostal understanding that the BHS is a subsequent experience, where a Believer is further endued with Power from on High, it does not really matter if the BHS is one of subsequence or if it is soteriological, as there is no doubt that Pentecostal (and charismatic) missionaries in particular have been far more effective with reaching the lost in those areas that have been traditionally resistant to the Gospel. This has come about due to such missionaries being more open to both the leading and the Power of the Holy Spirit, whereas their traditionalist predecessors relied more on their denominations doctrine than with power.
There are good reasons for this, for many such as myself who came to the Lord within a cessationist environment as a teenager, it meant that I was one of those who Paul spoke of in 1Cor 12:1, being one of
the ignorant or
unlearned. So poor teaching can certainly isolate people from the Gospel which is why it took me around 18 months to work out that what I was experiencing around me was vastly different to the written testimony of the New Testament Church.
Now there are certainly those who for whatever reason have struggled to allow the Holy Spirit to pray to the Father through them. For me, I know that I walked away from the very dedicated and helpful individuals who were praying for me and maybe a dozen others to receive what I understood then as being the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, where I incorrectly presumed that the BHS was intended to be subsequent to our initial conversion experience. But anyway, it was about four hours later when I “decided” or “chose” or where I maybe chose to “cast away my hangups” or whatever it was, where I was then able to then pray in the Spirit. As for those who take days, weeks, months or years before they allow themselves to pray in the Spirit, I really cannot say why, other than they may have been as I was, where maybe my Western programmed mind was getting in the way?
Now this is where things become interesting.
Back in 1971 the Evangelical scholar James D.G. Dunn released his pivotal work titled,
Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament on the Gift of the Spirit (1971); even though it took almost 15 years before a Pentecostal replied to his work, his fair critique of classic-Pentecostal doctrine has helped many to correct those doctrines that needed correction, where a reply to Dunn’s work was followed up by the classic-Pentecostal Roger Stronstad titled
The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (1984) which has unfortunately helped the AoG to prop up their incorrect understanding of the reception of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as being one of subsequence – which is unfortunate.
The AoG’s position (subsequent to Strondstadt’s work) has given rise to the notion that Luke’s charismatic theology trumps that of Paul, where Luke’s historical writings are given precedence of Paul who provides absolutely no hint that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is anything else but soteriological.
Craig Keener, who is a non-tongues speaking charismatic has made a few pertinent comments in his Book titled
Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (2012) where his comments on p830 will reflect the views of better scholarship, be it cessationist, Evangelical or Pentecostal;
(p.826) ‘Tongues as “initial evidence” of baptism in the Spirit became the dominant view among classical Pentecostals, however, despite dissent from some of its leading figures. This might be a minority view among [contemporary] global charismatics [he might mean Pentecostals] and certainly is so among charismatics in most traditional denominations. . . .”
(p.828) “Tongues speaking itself is not simply one sign among many, only arbitrarily connected with Spirit baptism. Rather, it is intrinsically connected with Luke’s emphasis on the Spirit’s empowerment to proclaim Christ cross-culturally (1:8). It may not be necessary to evidence the cross-cultural facility of every individual recipient, but in Luke’s narrative it does evidence the character of Spirit baptism itself, explicating for Luke the nature of that empowerment”.
(p.830) “Thus I would argue that Luke does in fact use tongues as evidence of baptism in the Spirit and in one sense would argue this more strongly than most traditional Pentecostals: tongues is not an arbitrary evidence but is highlighted because it is intrinsically related to the point of what Luke means by baptism in the Spirit”.
This question is somewhat complicated in that there are a number of interconnecting and often opposing issues at play, but overall I would be more inclined to say that someone who allows the Holy Spirit to pray through them in tongues that they would at least be more
spiritually cognisant but not necessarily more
spiritual than say the average Evangelical who for whatever reason is not alert to the things of the Spirit.
On the other hand, when we consider those who are open to the things of the Holy Spirit, where they regularly pray in the Holy Spirit and are open to the other Manifestations of the Spirit, if we were to compare them to those who have taken a long term and aggressive hard-core stand against the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, then I would lean toward the view that as the second group is working from within a
framework of unbelief then my response what certainly change.
When we speak or sing in the Holy Spirit during congregational worship its sole purpose is for praise to the Father, where each of the three given prayers of adoration must be articulated so that the congregations can gain an understanding of what was being said to the Father.
There are many who still believe (as I once did) that the formula
tongues + interpretation = prophecy but this has absolutely no Scriptural foundation.
I have no idea how you have come to this conclusion and why you supposedly know my views so well when as I have already explained throughout this and other threads that I believe no such thing.
Paul has explained in some detail within First Corinthians that when we pray to the Father through the Holy Spirit (tongues), that the Spirit will always communicate to the Father through inarticulate (angelic) tongues. This means that no one who is present and hears what the Spirit is saying to the Father is capable of understanding what the Spirit is saying – so there is no point to answer.
This amounts to little more than an old-wives tale where there has never been any serious work that has demonstrate this, but of course it is something that many humanist sociologists attempt to hoodwink people with, but of course this fits in well with their humanist agenda.
I’ll take the position that you are probably saying something that you do not really believe as it is impossible to demonstrate from within the Scriptures that tongues has the ability to be used to present the Gospel, there is simply no support for such a notion. Even on the Day of Pentecost we find that the content of the words that the 120 were speaking through the Spirit were words of praise about the mighty works of God, which is what the congregational use of tongues is about. If Peter had not of provided an evangelistic message, the vast majority of the crowd (if not all of them) would have walked away thinking that the 120 were speaking pre-rehearsed sentences in languages that they did not know and that would have been about it. As for tongues being a supposed “sign gift that speaks of Jesus”, I would have thought that this particular notion would be easily dismissed as even the Jews who approached the 120 made no mention that there was any reference to Jesus in what they heard.
Question: Do you believe that when Believers pray to the Father that he will both speak to his children and that our prayers have the ability to change specific events in the future.
