Being filled with the Holy Spirit vs tongues

[YeshuaFan]

That is just your opinion and puts a limit on what God chooses to do. Tongues are a gift which is part of the Charismatic Catholic Church movement, as all of the gifts of the Spirit are. I personally haven't witnessed anyone employ that gift but I certainly wouldn't say that God doesn't do that any more.

There have been none gifted to do healings and miracles as the Apostles were in Acts though, and why would the Holy Spirit be involved in the modern Charismatic Chaos Movement, when so much of its theology is plain wrong, and in some cases, outright heresy?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I need clarity on this one; i have heard many pastors in my church asking us to pray for the filling of the Holy Spirit. They also say that the evidence of this in-filling is speaking in tongues. I have searched scriptures and don't find the two connected. Every time this is taught, I get frustrated because it seems not to line up with scripture.
Speaking in tongues is a gift of the spirit according to 1 Cor 12.
Why is this taught in churches? Is baptism with the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues? What about those who don't speak in tongues, are they not baptized?
Am I missing something here?

Praise God! He has filled you with His Holy Spirit by discerning this gift! Your right, it is not scriptural. It is one of the gifts. This is a Pentecostal doctrine and not really shared by many Evangelicals. If you remain a Pentecostal eventually you will have to "cave in" to this belief and most certainly end up faking the gift. It is unfortunate but it is the one contentious issue within this denomination that separates them from the rest of the Charismatics.
Blessings

 

[His student]

I need clarity on this one; i have heard many pastors in my church asking us to pray for the filling of the Holy Spirit. They also say that the evidence of this in-filling is speaking in tongues. I have searched scriptures and don't find the two connected. Every time this is taught, I get frustrated because it seems not to line up with scripture.
Speaking in tongues is a gift of the spirit according to 1 Cor 12.
Why is this taught in churches? Is baptism with the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues? What about those who don't speak in tongues, are they not baptized?
Am I missing something here?

The disciples were told to wait for a coming of the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation. They did so and the Spirit came upon them as promised.

Jesus had told them that they would be "baptized with the Spirit "not many days future". Understandably - that is where this second ministry of the Spirit, subsequent to sealing at salvation, gets it's name in Pentecostal circles.

The scriptures say that they were "filled with the Spirit and began to speak in other tongues".

Jesus told us that it is the pleasure of God to give us His Spirit without measure and assured us that if we asked for Him subsequent to salvation because we see it in the scriptures we need not fear a counterfeit or something evil.

Although tongues seem to accompany the arrival of the Spirit frequently in the scriptures - we are not told that they must.

The teaching that all who are "filled with" or "baptized with or in" the Spirit will necessarily speak in tongues is not biblical. Nor is the teaching that all who speak in tongues are necessarily filled with the spirit.

We are told not to speak in tongues openly unless there is an interpretation and anyone teaching people to do otherwise to "prove" their spirituality is not teaching scripture.

People debate whether tongues as currently practiced in various ways are being practiced in a biblical manner. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not IMO.

The scripture makes statements to the effect that we are all baptized by one Spirit into the Body of Christ. Also that if we don't "have" the Spirit we are not saved. It is debatable whether the scriptures are speaking of the "sealing" ministry of the Spirit or the subsequent coming of the Spirit upon believers.

It is understandable that there should be such debate simply because of the way the scriptures are written for us by the Spirit. IMO - this is a bit of a test for the church. The scriptures tell us that "no doubt there have to be differences between you in order that those are approved may become evident among you".

Some on both sides handle the controversy wrong and will, no doubt, hear about it at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Some handle it in the right way and with a good spirit. I like to think I am one of those.

My advice for you is to ask for all God has for you in this matter and be open to what the Spirit does with your tongue. It's between you and God via your understanding of the various scriptures involved and the subsequent faith that understanding creates in you. There are only so many scriptures which can be brought to bear in this matter and you don't need anyone but the Holy Spirit to lead you into the truth of the matter.

As for me - my experiences with tongues has not been exactly like any particular example from the book of Acts or the Corinthian letter. They are however thoroughly biblical.

I have never had occasion to speak in tongues openly although others supposedly have. IMO most of those are done in a way that is not supported by scripture.

I pray in tongues between me and God and I believe it has great benefit. I don't believe I'm wasting my time doing something that is not scriptural and I certainly don't believe that I am doing something counterfeited by the enemy or evil.

IMO - anyone who defends all of the beliefs and practices done by Pentecostals is not reading the scriptures except through preconceived blinders. They are going against or above what the scriptures teach.

IMO - anyone who teaches that tongues or any other gift have ceased is not reading the scriptures except through preconceived blinders. They are going against or above what the scriptures teach.

Both have fallen into a ditch IMO.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Thank you folks for your responses though the discussion has turned into a cessation/continuation debate over tongues. We should probably discuss that on another forum.
That said, how do you deal with the same error continuously taught in a church? (This is the only error I have noted and the rest of what is taught is biblical.)

You can not change this error in the Pentecostal church. This is their foundation and what sets them apart from other denominations.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I'll probably get heat for this but there was a monk named Fr. Seraphim Rose who wrote a book that covered the early charismatic movement. He analyzed how the movement started and developed and compared it with other similar historical movements. One specific thing that was creepily similar was Victorian era mediumism. Both mediumism and charismatic faiths create an environment and open the mind to suggestion, and then spread a certain action or thought through the group usually via touch.

The book is called Orthodoxy and and the religion of the future if you are interested.

 

[Pethesedzao]

There have been none gifted with healing/miracle gifts as the Apostles themselves were by God in Acts then, and there have been no more speaking in tongues needed to showed one had received the promised Holy Spirit!

One cannot intercede effectively unless one prays in tongues (in the Spirit)

 

[JCFantasy23]

I need clarity on this one; i have heard many pastors in my church asking us to pray for the filling of the Holy Spirit. They also say that the evidence of this in-filling is speaking in tongues. I have searched scriptures and don't find the two connected. Every time this is taught, I get frustrated because it seems not to line up with scripture.
Speaking in tongues is a gift of the spirit according to 1 Cor 12.
Why is this taught in churches? Is baptism with the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues? What about those who don't speak in tongues, are they not baptized?
Am I missing something here?

First, I'm not crazy about the trend of telling people to be "filled with the Holy Spirit." Once we are saved, He is already there, always there with us. The way this is phrased is like making it our choice and our decision on when and how we will feel God, like He comes back to refill us or needs to be asked to come fill us. I never understood that. He reveals and shows as He wills, not when he is called by our command.

Taking it even further, in some of the worship services I've seen, some seem to encourage louder or more worship so that the congregation can be filled and gifted with the Holy Spirit. It makes it an earn and reward system. To me that's not biblical, and perhaps encroaching on blasphemous soil.

It is confusing to me to say this at all, but then some people order "be filled by the holy spirit and then show it by speaking in tongues."

If this is the case, when they stop speaking in tongues, are they saying they are less filled in the holy spirit?

I am actually not a cessationist, but a lot of the current styles in Christianity confuse me.

I agree with your post that it doesn't agree with scripture. We are not to all speak in tongues, and not as a sign of something in particular (such as worship to show we have the Holy Spirit filling us). To me it is asking to see or hear a type of sign to show that we have earned this gift and is something to keep working toward / building up toward.

 

[Cis.jd]

I need clarity on this one; i have heard many pastors in my church asking us to pray for the filling of the Holy Spirit. They also say that the evidence of this in-filling is speaking in tongues. I have searched scriptures and don't find the two connected. Every time this is taught, I get frustrated because it seems not to line up with scripture.
Speaking in tongues is a gift of the spirit according to 1 Cor 12.
Why is this taught in churches? Is baptism with the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues? What about those who don't speak in tongues, are they not baptized?
Am I missing something here?

It leads to good money for them. Take a look at the televangelists. After they are throwing their jackets and making the crowds fall and speak in fake gibberish, then they leave the church in their rolls royce's. At the same time it's those crowds who are just as bad.. they are so stupid and they just make themselves believe in the evangelists lies when nothing is really happening to them spiritually. I don't understand why people just don't hit the common sense breaks when they are giving someone money for nothing.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I'll probably get heat for this but there was a monk named Fr. Seraphim Rose who wrote a book that covered the early charismatic movement. He analyzed how the movement started and developed it and compared it with other similar historical movements. One specific thing that was creepily similar was Victorian era mediumism. Both mediumism and charismatic faiths create an environment and open the mind to suggestion, and then spread a certain action or thought through the group usually via touch.

The book is called Orthodoxy and and the religion of the future if you are interested.

I may look into it sometime, sounds interesting. Haven't heard of it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I have come to the conclusion that the baptism with the Spirit involves a total transformation of the heart and spirit of a person, and the evidence of that change is obvious. If a person professes Christianity, but there is no obvious, comprehensive transformation, then they cannot prove that they were bapitised with the Spirit all.

I would go on to say that without that transformation, the person cannot prove that they were genuinely converted.

The Puritans believed that true conversion involved a total transformation of heart and life and only the Holy Spirit could do it in a person. A person could receive Christ, but then had to pray and seek God for the transformation that was true conversion, otherwise all the person had was just religion.

The Methodlist Hoiiness folk believed in entire sanctification by faith, and that had to be a total transformation of heart and life.

Now, putting the three together - true conversion, entire sanctification, and baptism with the Spirit, all involving a total transformation - and that in a believer's life there can only be one transformation, then all three speak of exactly the same thing, except that in different stages of Christian history, the transformation was described in different ways.

There are many who profess Christianity and even speak in tongues, but they are not showing the fruit of a total transformation in their lives. We don't see the Christlike nature coming out of them in the form of the fruit of the Spirit. My view is that unless the transformation has taken place, they are still unconverted, although very religious, and are not baptised with the Spirit at all!

So, to me, the observable evidence of being filled with the Spirit is that the professing Christian does not walk according the flesh but shows his walk in the Spirit through the fruit of the Spirit.

Paul said, "Do all speak in tongues?" which tells me that those who are filled with the Spirit have the ability to speak in tongues, but many choose not to. He did not say, "Can all speak in tongues?" which implies that not all have that ability.

I believe that anyone who is baptised with the Spirit can speak in tongues if they choose to. But many don't because they are spooked away from it by the bad example of those who are misusing the gift, and the deceptive cessationist teaching.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The one in the OP. The church leadership continually telling the congregation to pray for filling of the Holy Spirit and to "open their mouths and start speaking in tongues" as the evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit?

Do we let everyone figure it out by acting like the bereans or else?

The true "evidence" of being born again of the Spirit is a drastically changed life. We are dead to sin and not in the flesh but in the Spirit. That is a Christian. However, you are wrong in assuming that not everyone who believes can speak in tongues for prayer TO God. Mark 16:16-18 shows us the signs following those who are believers. What is not universal is the gift of diverse kinds of tongues receiving messages FROM God that MUST be interpreted. Those are for use to the church as a whole.

I was going to church for the first 30 years of my life without receiving the Holy Spirit. But when I truly repented from sin, I was finally filled with the Spirit, and experience that drastic change with signs and wonders following. Many in the church have never truly repented from sin and will always struggle with their flesh. They are not Christians, and Jesus will say to them, "I never knew you."

 

[1stcenturylady]

For the reason you see in the above posts. Several others are jumping on the cessation/continuation discussion as well.

ok

 

[☦Marius☦]

The true "evidence" of being born again of the Spirit is a drastically changed life. We are dead to sin and not in the flesh but in the Spirit. That is a Christian. However, you are wrong in assuming that not everyone who believes can speak in tongues for prayer TO God. Mark 16:16-18 shows us the signs following those who are believers. What is not universal is the gift of diverse kinds of tongues receiving messages FROM God that MUST be interpreted. Those are for use to the church as a whole.

I was going to church for the first 30 years of my life without receiving the Holy Spirit. But when I truly repented from sin, I was finally filled with the Spirit, and experience that drastic change with signs and wonders following. Many in the church have never truly repented from sin and will always struggle with their flesh. They are not Christians, and Jesus will say to them, "I never knew you."

This sounds great, but what about addicts? What about people who truly try to repent, but don't have the strength to because of their addictions combined with depression that weakens them further. Will their change be obvious?

This is why God is the judge of a man's salvation and not other men.

Only God can see the heart. Some of the most moral people I've known were also the most self righteous and judgemental- who loved telling their wonderful testimony. In fact they could talk about themselves all day.

While on the other hand the most sinful were the most humble. They knew they didn't have the strength themselves to overcome sin, and instead were patiently waiting for God to save them from it.

What was it Paul said?

Romans 7:15-20
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.


Does that sound like someone perfect? Or someone still struggling with their flesh?

All morality is pointless unless there is humility first. Pride was the first sin, and it the first that must be overcome.

 

[Ing Bee]

I need clarity on this one; i have heard many pastors in my church asking us to pray for the filling of the Holy Spirit. They also say that the evidence of this in-filling is speaking in tongues. I have searched scriptures and don't find the two connected. Every time this is taught, I get frustrated because it seems not to line up with scripture.
Speaking in tongues is a gift of the spirit according to 1 Cor 12.
Why is this taught in churches? Is baptism with the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues? What about those who don't speak in tongues, are they not baptized?
Am I missing something here?

Good for you for "searching the scriptures" like a Berean! Can I just say as an aside that this is one of the best ways to grow in your love of God and His word? By digging into scripture on a topic of interest you become an encouragement to others since you can point them to life-giving truth.

Reading Ephesians 1:3-14 (focusing on 13 and 14), Titus 3:3-7, and 1 Corinthians 6:11, you get the picture that the Father, Son and Spirit have all been involved in the plan and process of redemption and adoption in God's family. 1 Corinthians 12 is a focus passage on the continuing work of the Spirit in unifying and providing for the church. Whether you believe tongues are still active or not, they are never given pride of place and (as another poster noted) Paul downplays any preference to that particular gift. Christianity IS the work and relationships of the Trinity to each other, each individual believer, and the whole family of God. Unless you are born of the Spirit you are not a Spiritual person. Once you Have been born of the Spirit you are permanently sealed with the Spirit as a guarantee of the promised inheritance: eternal life.

Instead of getting frustrated with pastors and others who are mistaken here (although it does have some consequences if people focus on this inordinately), spend some time in your study of the topic rejoicing in the reality of the Spirit's work in your life:

• John 3:6-8 - He was the one who first breathed life into you, giving birth to the New You
• John 14:15-21 - He is sent by the Son to permanently help, comfort, and teach
• John 16:7-11 - He partners with you by preparing people to hear the good news about Jesus. There is no such thing as a "cold call" when sharing the Good News, because the Spirit goes before you.
• Ephesians 1:13-14 - The guarantee and downpayment of our inheritance
• Galatians 5:19-26 - the New Spiritual Fruit that is evidence of the life of God inside you
• Romans 8:26 - the Spirit's care for us, helping us when we don't know what to ask of the Father
• 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 - the Spirit teaches and reveals to us God's thoughts through the Word that He inspired (2 Peter 1:21)

By the way, you'll notice that none of those passages spoken by the Lord Jesus or the disciples mention tongues as the main benefit of the Spirit. Tongues are a gift to be used for the advancement of the kingdom (Acts 2 -"in our own languages") not as a personal assurance of salvation, just like teaching, administration, prophecy, etc.) This is why Paul (in 1 Cor. 14) de-emphasizes tongues. 1 Cor. 12:30 is a rhetorical question whose answers is "no".

 

[1stcenturylady]

This sounds great, but what about addicts? What about people who truly try to repent, but don't have the strength to because of their addictions combined with depression that weakens them further. Will their change be obvious?

This is why God is the judge of a man's salvation and not other men.

Only God can see the heart. Some of the most moral people I've known were also the most self righteous and judgemental- who loved telling their wonderful testimony. In fact they could talk about themselves all day.

While on the other hand the most sinful were the most humble. They knew they didn't have the strength themselves to overcome sin, and instead were patiently waiting for God to save them from it.

What was it Paul said?

Romans 7:15-20
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.


Does that sound like someone perfect? Or someone still struggling with their flesh?

All morality is pointless unless there is humility first. Pride was the first sin, and it the first that must be overcome.

I always look to Scripture for truth, and make my experience line up with Scripture. Whereas others take their experience and twist Scripture to fit their experience.

The Spirit is stronger than any addiction, but the person must repent of the addiction, and not still love darkness.

 

[☦Marius☦]

The Spirit is stronger than any addiction, but the person must repent of the addiction, and not still love darkness.

I don't think you understand what an addiction is then

 

[1stcenturylady]

I don't think you understand what an addiction is then

Is it stronger than God's power to free?

 

[JCFantasy23]

We are obviously debating different views of sanctification here. Like Marius, I'm of the belief that once you are saved, you are not perfect or not fighting lingering sins. If we all waited until we got rid of every vice as proof, most wouldn't be saved - if any - and that's not aligning with scripture. We are imperfect made perfect with God's grace and patience. While God can and does heal addictions in some cases, other times it is part of our walk to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling".

By the grace of God we all go.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Is it stronger than God's power to free?

No but God frees in his own timing, not ours. Sometimes to encourage humility he let's someone suffer addiction for years, even if they are trying their best to serve him.

 

[Yarddog]

There have been none gifted to do healings and miracles as the Apostles were in Acts though, and why would the Holy Spirit be involved in the modern Charismatic Chaos Movement, when so much of its theology is plain wrong, and in some cases, outright heresy?

That is just an opinion which you can't back up.